Toward the New Education 



THE CASE AGAINST AUTOCRACY 
IN OUR PUBLIC SCHOOLS 



(Being a reply to a pamphlet issued by The School- 
masters' Association of New York and Vicinity and 
The American Defense Society, entitled, "Unpatriotic 
Teaching in Public Schools/') 



TEACHERS' UNION OF THE 

CITY OF NEW YORK 

70 Fifth Avenue 



LABOR AND LOYALTY 

Even before this number of The American Teacher is printed our 
country may be at war with the government of the German people. Should 
war come, the workers of this country stand ready to support the gov- 
ernment m every possible way, to the end that the democratic and humani- 
tar,an prmciples that are at tlie foundation of this nation may be pre- 
served in the world. 

The readers and supporters of The American Teacher are in large 
part among the great body of citizen workers who have fought, relent- 
lessly, the idea of war upon any nation. They know who bear the bur- 
dens of war and they know who profit by its fury. The representatives 
ot orgamzed labor who met in Washington in March, had a great re- 
sponsibility, the President of our American Federation of Teachers among 
them. Even at the time of the conference in Washington the outbreak of 
war seemed a certainty. The great question was what should be the 
course of labor? As we face the great crisis we can see no alternative 
i-abor must stand ready to give its service. 

The loyalty thus pledged in the name 'of the cotrmion people is not 
to be confused with the hysterical shouting and gesticulating that pass 
in many quarters as manifestations of "patriotism.- It is not that un- 
qualified and unquestioned submission to the dictates and whims of men 
who happen to be in authority, under all circumstances. It is a sincere 
devotion to the ostensible purpose of the government in promoting the 
aims and ideals of the American people, in the interests of wider liberties 
more hrm security of human rights, and further extension of the es- 
sentials of civilization. 

We shall make our prayers or our propaganda to avoid the stupidities 
as well as the brutalities of war, up to the very moment that may at last 
find us at war. But when war comes, if it comes, we shall have responsi- 

wT T ?u"' '"^'' "' ^"'"^^'"' "P°" "^ ^^ *he responsibilities of 
oyalty to the government and its major purpose. Upon us will rest 
the responsib.lity to guard those fundamental attainments of such civili- 
zation as we have against the ruthless assaults of privilege and greed 
and reaction^ Upon us will rest the resposibility to resist the temptatLn 
o exploit chidren and other defenseless members of the community on 
the pretext of necessity; the temptation to deprive the workers of fheir 
protection against conditions that rob of health and sanity. fVe shall be 
respond for keeprng alive those ideals of justice and liberty and hi 
mamty that are the most serious victims of every war 

We shall be loyal. We shaU not, however, permit our loyalty to 
the government' to blind us to our loyalty to the heart of the nafion 
Nor shall we let it blind us to the loyalties that this nation still owe to 
manlcmd today and tomorrow. We shall be loyal, but we shall not be 

(From 'The American Teacher," April, 1917.) 









CAN WE TRUST THE KEEPING OF OUR AMERICAN 
DEMOCRACY IN THE HANDS OF ORGANIZA- 
TIONS WHOSE ACTIVITIES INSPIRE 
MOB MADNESS? 

A Letter which the American Defense Society should 
have repudiated when it knew of its existence. 

W. C. MOORE 

Market Expert 

STOCKS, GRAINS, COTTON 

52 Wall Street 

New York 

April 22, 1918. 

Dear Doc : 

I note from a reading of the newspaper that you and your mis- 
guided followers are about to open a soap-box campaign in the 
interests of Bill the Kaiser. 

I am credibly informed there are five hundred teachers in the 
city schools who are in sympathy and who are working in harmony 
with the German propaganda. I have reason to believe that ninety- 
nine percent of these poor deluded and incompetent teachers are 
disloyal and that a very large percent of them are traitors, you 
among them. 

Now let me tell you Doc, that the good teyal people of the City 
of New York have about exhausted their patience with you and 
your ilk and that the day of retribution is not far ofif. Personally 
I would like to take a hand in administering a coat of tar and 
feathers and a hemp rope in your case and in ninety percent of the 
others whose names are connected with your own in this intended 
disloyal soap-box campaign. I believe that every person identified 
with you in this movement is a yellow bird and an enemy of our 
country. I believe you are all without patriotism and that ninety- 
five percent of you are abject cravens. 

Now Doc, there is not one of your flock of yellow birds that 
dares to come and face me and make in my presence the observa- 
tions and accusations that I make against j^ou and other foul birds. 
Keep in mind the fact that I am an American of the genuine kind 
and cannot and will not tolerate disloyalty or treason in my native 
land. 

Not one member of your Teachers' Association should be per- 
mitted to t'-ch in the Public Schools of N. Y. and I shall do my 
part toward . -ing that this policy I herein advocate is carried out. 



In conclusion, Doc, if you have any of the good red blood in 
your veins which you should have, you will come to my office at an 
earlj^ date and resent what T am saying to you. If you do not 
come I shall brand you as a COWARD. 
Yours truly, 
WCM/FE W. C. MOORE 

To Doctor Henry R. Linville, Member of the 

Jamaica High School, AM. DEFENSE SOCIETY 

Jamaica, L. I. 



* Connecting reference in the New York Sun. 

LOYALTY OF MORE TEACHERS ASSAILED 



Schoolmasters' Association Report Attacks Leaders of 
Teachers' Union. 



LINVILLE HEADS GROUP 



Educators to Start Counter Offensive Against SociaHst 
Propaganda. 



The decision of a number of school teachers yesterday 
to take to the soap box in a joint campaign of the National 
Security League and the American Defence Society to coun- 
teract German and Socialist propaganda followed directly 
a meeting of the Schoolmasters' Association of New York 
and Vicinity, at which the loyalty of teachers in the New 
York school system was discussed. At that meeting Cleve- 
land Moffett, author and member of the defence society, de- 
clared that there are still 500 teachers in this city who are 
not heart and soul in sympathy with the war. * * " * * 

Established 1908 P. O. Box 60 

Wall Street Station 

Letter from Henry R. Linville to American Defense Society : 

April 23, 1918. 
Mr. H. D. Craig, 

Secretary, American Defense Society, 
44 East 23rd St., New York. 
Dear Sir : — 

It may be a matter of surprise to you that one of your members 
has forwarded to me a letter of extremely threatening nature ap- 
parently based on a report of a committee which was published 
in the Sunday issue of the New York Sun. The committee's report 
appears to be published uniler the auspices of your Society. We 

By Tr^sfpr 
Buraau of investigation 
March 17,1933 



are leaving to our lawyer the determination of responsibility for 
the situation that has now developed. 

In the meantime, our organization believes that a basis for com- 
mon understanding on the matter of loyalty or dislo>-alty in the 
school system may be worked out by means of a calm consideration 
in public of your point of view and of ours. Apparently, we diflfer 
y very greatly now. We are therefore proposing to you that a joint 

meeting be held in the ver>- near future, under the direction of a 
Chairman outside either organization, and that the issue of loj^alty 
be discussed there frankly by the representatives. Your organiza- 
tion and the Schoolmasters' Association have made charges against 
us which can now be fairly met only in a public meeting, and we 
trust you will see the situation in this light. 

We should be glad if a representative of the Schoolmasters were 
one of the speakers. 

Very truly j'ours, 

HENRY R. LINVILLE, 
President Teachers' Union 

Letter from American Defense Society to Teachers' 
Union : 



Here appears a cut of 
the National Emblem 
with the words, 
"These Colors Will 
Not Run." 



AMERICAN DEFENSE SOCIETY, Inc. 
National Headquarters — 44 East 23rd St., 

New York. 
May 10, 1918. 



The Teachers' Union, 
70 Fifth Avenue, 
New York City. 
Henrj' R. Linville, Esq., President 
Dear Sir: — 

Referring to your letter of April 2oth regarding a debate upon a 
basis for a common understanding on the matter of disloyalty in 
the school system, we have only to say that we stand firmly on the 
proposition that the question of loyalty is not debatable, and we 
reject your proposition in every respect. Yours truly, 

HENRY C QUINBY, Chairman Executive Committee 

Comment on their failure to meet the issue : 

The self-appointed champions of the flag have accused the Teachers' 
Union of dislo3^alty, and when the Union challenges their organiza- 
tion to join the issue, the American Defense Society evades and 
runs awa)-. If the A. D. S. is without courage, then it is not a 
proper champion for the flag whose "colors will not run." The 
A. D. S. has been accused publicly by a former Chairman of its 
Executive Committee, Dr. Ward C. Crampton, of being a "self- 
advertising organization." The Teachers' Union submits that to 
use the flag on letter-heads for advertising purposes is shamefully 
illegal. 



INTRODUCTION 

ON OR about April 25, 1918, a pamphlet published by 
the American Defense Society, called Pamphlet Series, 
No. 24, was circulated in the schools of the City of 
New York. The statements of this pamphlet were pre- 
pared by a committee of the Schoolmasters' Association, an 
organization composed of principals and teachers of public 
and private schools in New York City and vicinity. The 
title of the pamphlet is "Unpatriotic Teaching in Public 
Schools," and the sub-title is "The Facts Concerning the 
Transfer and Dismissal of certain Teachers of the DeWitt 
Clinton High School, New York City." 

Inasmuch as the pamphlet is a sustained attack on the 
work and the ideals of the officers and the members of the 
Teachers' Union of the City of New York, it becomes the 
duty of the Teachers' Union to meet the attack. But if the 
reply of the Teachers' Union should stop at merely answer- 
ing the attack point by point, or at indicating the false 
statements of which the report is full, or at showing the 
personal motives for the participation of active members of 
the responsible committee of teachers, or at demonstrating 
the narrow mindedness and the absence of social under- 
standing of presumably all the members of the Schoolmas- 
ters' Association, then the Teachers' Union would fail to 
meet a far more important responsibility than any or all of 
these. This responsibility is the justification of its con- 
structive democratic program in an educational system 
where democracy has been an unused word and autocracy 
for years has dominated the acts and the thinking of officials 
and teachers alike. 

It will be recalled that on December 19, 1917, three 
teachers were dismissed from the school system of New 
York City on the charge of "conduct unbecoming a teacher." 
On April 8, 1918, the appeal of the teachers was heard 
before the State Department of Education, At the time of 
writing this pamphlet, May, 1918, no decision had as yet 
been rendered. Meanwhile, during the month of April, 
ivhile decision was pending, a committee of the Schoolmas- 
ters' Association, under the auspices of the American De- 



fense Society, issued a pamphlet untruthfully entitled "Un- 
patriotic Teaching in the Public Schools," which concludes 
with the following : 

SUMMARY 
"Your committee finds unanimously that Messrs. Schmalhausen, 
Mufson and Schneer were justly dismissed from the service of the 
Board of Education of the City of New York; that such other 
teachers in the service as express like views should be dismissed ; 
and that the pica of the dismissed teachers to the State Commis 
sioner of Education for reinstatement should be denied." (our 
italics) 

May we ask the impartial reader what he thinks of this 
attempt to influence by unfair and undue pressure the State 
Department of Education? For it is plainly an attempt to 
corrupt the higher court. Is this the kind of ethics which 
the representatives of the Schoolmasters' Association and 
of the American Defense Society consider a proper back- 
ground for fair dealing and patriotism ? What kind of fair- 
mindedness can we expect from gentlemen who are guilty 
of so obvious a breach of legal ethics ? 

In addition, it is well worth noting at the verj'" outset, 
that the Schoolmasters' report is full of one-sided, inade- 
quate, untruthful and sometimes even malicious assertions. 
For example, what do they mean by "unpatriotic" teaching, 
when they themselves admit (on page 8) "the committee 
was unable to find any proof that any of these teachers had 
even been suspected, much less accused, of disloyalty by 
any school official or any teacher. In fact all the evidence 
tends to prove the negative of this claim." Does this ad- 
mission mean that the teachers referred to are not disloyal 
but that they are unpatriotic? The logic of this concession 
to truth clearly implies that the three teachers, though ad- 
mittedly loyal, are yet somehow or other to be stigmatized 
as unpatriotic. Where is their evidence of unpatriotism ? 
Assuming their illogical attitude of admitting a person can 
be loyal and unpatriotic, what evidence have they presented 
to show the teachers are unpatriotic ? 

Is it conceivable that teachers who are "guilty" of "un- 
patriotic teaching" are somehow or other not guilty of dis- 
loyalty ? But since the authors of the pamphlet are at some 
pains to admit that the three dismissed teachers are not 
guilty of disloyalty, how can they, in one and the same 
breath, be declared innocent of disloyalty and guilty of un- 



patriotism? A nice dilemma for the Schoolmasters' logi- 
cians to unravel ! Indeed, throughout the pamphlet the con- 
cepts "loyalty" and "patriotism" are used interchangeably 
— which is the normal usage. Of course, the truth is that 
the teachers were not accused of disloyalty; they were not 
accused of unpatriotism. What they were honestly accused 
of will appear in our reply. 

There is a real basis for the fierce opposition of the 
Committee of the Schoolmasters' Association. But it is not 
even remotely connected with the problems of loyalty and 
patriotism. The authors of the pamphlet let the cat out of 
the bag when in their "Preliminary Statement" they say 
(page 4) "the committee finds that there exists in the teach- 
ing staff of the New York City schools a group of teachers 
who continually oppose any act or policy in educational af- 
fairs, and, likewise, in municipal, state and national affairs 
which is not in accord with their individualistic notions with 
reference to that act or policy." This statement is so sig- 
nificant in what it reveals as to the underlying intentions of 
the Committee that it will be analyzed in detail in our an- 
swer to Charge I. 

The method of the educational enemy is to quote as 
authentic and authoritative a fragment of an assertion 
which is vouched for by no one in particular. This farcical 
method reaches its height of absurdity in those unbeliev- 
able bits of "evidence" where statement after statement is 
introduced with the startlingly authentic phrase, "another 
said," "another report is," "another is quoted as saying," 
"one exclaimed," "one said." If this be authentic evidence, 
let's frankly go back to the days of the inquisition. 

If the reader will take the trouble to consult the volume 
of testimony taken at the trial of the three teachers, he will 
be surprised to discover that all this so-called evidence of 
the Schoolmasters' Committee is nowhere to be found re- 
corded. We wonder that the Board of Education failed to 
include so much overwhelming evidence. Or, shall we 
rather assume that the Board had too much good sense to 
include such flimsy fragmentary material? 

There are many citizens of New York City who are 
acquainted with the facts and the unprofessional methods 
of inquiry brought out by the trial and the dismissal of the 
three teachers of DeWitt Clinton High School. These and 



other friends of the Teachers' Union should not dismiss the 
accusations contained in the pamphlet of the American De- 
fense Society because of their obviously prejudiced char- 
acter. But they should be patient until we disclose the 
community of interest of those who prosecuted and those 
who now defend the prosecutors. To those enlightened citi- 
zens who are unacquainted with the facts of this particular 
controversy, but are acquainted with the social blindness 
and the mental helplessness of the forces of reaction, there 
will be much in our recital of facts and interpretations that 
will be of consuming interest. We trust, however, that if 
the child-like psychology of our adversaries amuses, there 
will be no indifference to the dire social menace of continu- 
ing in office in the schools these dwarfed mentalities and 
thousands of others like them. 

The Teachers' Union does not pretend to conceal its 
satisfaction at the prospect the Schoolmasters' Association 
has opened up for our movement for democracy in educa- 
tion and human justice in its administration. It is alto- 
gether probable that we might have waited for years for 
the opportunity which our reactionary adversaries have 
thoughtlessly afforded us. 

The American Defense Society pamphlet which con- 
tains the accusations against the Teachers' Union is very 
badly organized editorially. The Union's committee fimds 
it extremely difficult to arrange the items in the charges in 
satisfactory categories. The best that can be done seems 
to be to make a division in which shall be placed all the 
charges that are made against the Union or against an ill- 
defined "group" which to our adversaries seem.s to repre- 
sent the Union. In this first division the reader will find 
items, the statement of which is given in words quoted 
from the pamphlet "Unpatriotic Teaching in Public 
Schools", or in a paraphrase. Each item is followed by 
our answer. The second division of our pamphlet is given 
over to particular charges against individual members of 
the Teachers' Union, and to our replies, including a great 
deal of interesting history in educational administration 
upon which the reader may build important generalizations 
of a social nature. Our pamphlet closes with a Summary. 



PART I. 
SECTION I. 

THE ITEMS IN THE CHARGES OF THE SCHOOLMAS- 
TERS' ASSOCIATION AND THE ANSWERS BY 
THE TEACHERS' UNION. 

Item I. (a) "There exists in the teaching staff of the 
New York City schools a group of teachers who continually 
oppose any act or policy in educational affairs and likewise in 
municipal, state and national affairs which is not in accord 
with their individualistic notions with reference to that act 
or policy." (Page 4.) 

Our Answer — The context of this item indicates plainly 
that the authors of it believe it to be descriptive of the atti- 
tude of the Teachers' Union, or of some responsible officers 
in that organization. But nothing could be further from the 
truth. The Teachers' Union is a local in The American 
Federation of Teachers and thru that organization in the 
American Federation of Labor, and is in honor bound to 
work for the best interests of the schools and the commun- 
ity. The Teachers' Union never has worked in accordance 
with "individualistic notions", although it will admit that 
it has striven to discredit policies which appeared to be con- 
ceived on lines of personal interest rather than in the in- 
terest of the people. 

The Schoolmasters present no evidence whatever to 
support the first part of the above charge, but content them- 
selves with charging the Union with being "individualistic" 
here, and "socialistic" later on, showing that they do not 
understand the meanings of political terms. Thus they 
bring humiliation on our common profession. 

But precisely who are a "group of teachers" referred to 
in Item I? Why this mystifying vagueness? Why the 
sinister and dishonest use of the phrase "continually op- 
pose"? We defy the authors to point out specifically any 
statement in the pamphlet of any act or policy either in 
educational or in municipal, state or national affairs that 
this so-called group has opposed. If the gentlemen who use 
the term "opposition" mean criticism, we should like to 
know exactly when and by whose authority the right of 
criticism has been abrogated in America? How can a group 

8 



of persons who are supposed to be so intimately united in 
thought and purpose be charged with individualistic no- 
tions? This conception of individuahsm becomes the more 
ludicrous in the light of the very next statement in the same 
paragraph charging this "group" with being socialistic. 

The charge of the Schoolmasters that the "group", ap- 
parently meaning the Teachers' Union' "opposes any act or 
policy not in accord with its individualistic notions," evi- 
dently is to be taken as an indication that the tory element 
in education has at last recognized officially the existence of 
a radical movement which threatens the peace and comfort 
of those who want things educational to remain as they are. 
Let us quote from our Intellectual Allies, and incidentally 
demonstrate whither education is moving. 

On the occasion of a mass meeting called by the Ameri- 
can Federation of Teachers at New York during the N. E. 
A. Convention, July 6, 1916, in protest against the arbi- 
trary dismissal of Chicago teachers, because they belonged 
to a union, Professor John Dewey spoke on "The Profes- 
sional Organization of Teachers." 

We quote these paragraphs from Professor Dewey's ad- 
dress : 

"We have lacked a sense of loyalty to our calling and to one 
another, and on that account have not accepted to the full our re- 
sponsibilities as citizens of the community. 

"To my mind, that is the great reason for forming organizations 
of this kind, and organizations which are affiliated with other work- 
ing organizations that have power and attempt to exercise the power 
like the American Federation of Labor, namely, the reflex effect 
upon the body of the teachers themselves in strengthening their 
courage, their faith in one another, and the recognition that they are 
servants of the community, and not persons hired by a certain 
transitory set of persons to do a certain job at their beck and call." 
And again, 

"Upon the whole, we have two kinds of teachers' associations. 
There are the purely pedagogical associations, those that discuss 
methods of teaching and alphabet and penmanship, and the muhi- 
plication table. Nobody ever heard of those associations getting 
into any trouble, so far as I know. They are a very good thing. 
They serve a very useful purpose. There isn't a sinister interest 
in the United States that isn't perfectly willing to leave in the hands 
of the teaching body the ultimate decision on points of that particu- 
lar kind, which come to be known as "pedagogy" and "pedagagical 
methods." There is no certainty, there is no likelihood, however, 
that the views of the body of teachers, in most of the cities and 



towns of the United Slates will at the present time have any real, 
positive, constnictivc inlluencc in determining the hasic educational 
policy of the schools of their communities, so far as a more general 
aspect of education is concerned. As to things that in the long run 
affect the life of the community, that affect the relations of capital 
and labor and so on, the discussions and deliberations of these 
purely pedagogical bodies are, as we all know, practically impotent. 
"On the other hand, there are organizations which do not call 
themselves unions, which do not in any way afliliate themselves 
with labor unions and federations, which have performed a needed 
and a useful task in protecting certain personal interests of teachers, 
in protecting their salarj^ interests, the tenure and security of ofitice. 
Strangely enough, some of the leaders of these organizations who 
have done this purely personal work of looking after the personal 
interests of a teacher, seem to look with considerable horror upon 
a federation which shall actually come into relation with a labor 
imion. I don't know why. But there we have had the situation on 
the one hand of organizations of teachers dealing with purely peda- 
gogical subjects and on the other hand of organizations which are 
really of a protective nature looking after the personal interests of 
a body of teachers. 

"Now, as I see it, organizations such as are represented here 
tonight must attempt to get those two things together, to bring to- 
gether the educational interests which now are discussed in a purely 
theoretical way, and these other more practical concerns. We 
should have an organization which shall not on the one hand merely 
discuss somewhat minute and remote subjects of pedagogy with no 
certainty as to how their conclusions are going to take effect in 
practice, nor simply look after the personal and more or less selfish 
interests of teachers on the other hand. But we should have a 
body of self-respecting teachers and educators who will see to it 
that their ideas and their experience in educational matters shall 
really count in the community, and who, in order that these may 
count, will identify themselves with the interests of the community: 
who will conceive of themselves as citizens and as servants of the 
public, and not merely as hired employees of a certain body of men. 
It is because I hope to see the teaching bodj'^ occupy that position of 
social leadership which it ought to occupy, and which to our shame 
it must be said we have not occupied in the past, that T welcome 
every movement of this sort. 

"Objections are frequently made— generally, I think, of a snob- 
l)is]i character— against these federations, because of their affiliation 
with labor unions. T won't slop even to argue against the merelv 
snobbish features of that matter. T would like to point out that 
these labor unions are engaged in useful service: thai they also 
are servants of the public and it may be that if the more enlight- 
ened, more instructed— that is to .say, the more lettered portions 
of the community like the teachers— put themselves fairly and 
squarely on a level with these other bodies of people who are doing 
needed and useful service, that they will ha.stcn the time when all 

10 



of these unions will look at all of their work and labor, not merely 
from the standpoint of their personal interests and the protection 
of these personal interests, important as that is; but also from the 
standpoint of service to the general public' 

"There is one other thing I want to say. Why is it that teachers 
— who have not had to live bj' the labor of their hands and suffered 
the privations and difficulties of many of the members of the trades 
unions — have found it necessary in the time of need and extremity 
to turn for active support, not to manufacturers' associations and 
bankers' association and lawyers' associations, and the so-called re- 
spectable elements of the community, but have had to turn to these 
bodies of organized labor? I think that is cause for shame and 
humiliation on the part of the so-called respectable classes ; but, I 
think on the other hand, it is a source of pride and self-respect for 
the members of these labor unions and is a reason why every teacher 
should feel proud to be affiliated with the labor unions." — The 
American Teacher for September, 1916. 

Will our readers note how Professor Dewey's analysis 
of the natural function of a self-respecting teachers' organ- 
ization is followed up in point of view and in practise by 
the union teachers themselves? 

We quote from the address of Charles B. Stillman, 
President of the American Federation of Teachers, deliv- 
ered at the meeting of July 6, 1916: 

"Now, just a word of what we do and do not stand for. We 
do not stand for the protection of incompetents. That the unions 
do stand for such protection is one of the most frequent charges 
against us. No one suffers as much as we do from the incompetent 
teachers^ — not even the Board of Education. The associates of that 
incompetent teacher pay the price of her incompetence; and we 
have never yet defended an incompetent teacher and never expect 
to. In fact, we have refused to take up the cases of incompetent 
teachers. But v.'e do insist that a profession — that empty term they 
are so fond of handing to us in lieu of something to live on, altho 
we can hardly blame them when we see so many teachers greedily 
swallow it — we maintain that a genuine profession must have a 
voice in the determination and application of the standards of its 
own efficiency. The lawyers have such a voice, and the doctors also; 
and the teachers alone, among the professions, remain inarticulate, 
without any chance for a hearing."- — The American Teacher for 
September, 1916. 

Somewhere in the following may appear the reason for 
a suspected fear in the hearts of the educational tories. The 
union movement has "teeth", but they are used only in the 
defense of the public interest. This extract from The Amer- 
ican Teacher for June, 1917, tells something of the past 
and future of the New York Teachers' Union : 

11 



"The Teachers' Union has agreed to the principle of dismiss- 
ing incompetent teachers, but it has insisted upon the right of 
teachers to participate in determining what constitutes incompetence. 
In the final judgment of a teacher's incompetence the Union demands 
a public trial as against the method of star-chamber proceedings. 

"The Union has defended several teachers thru its legal staff 
against oppression and inhuman supervision. It has brought charges 
against a principal for abusing her powers, and has been instru- 
mental in placing abused teachers in schools where they are treated 
with courtesy and respect. Thru its able lawyer, Mr. John E. 
O'Brien, whose services are free to the members of the Union, the 
Union is preparing to question by legal procedure certain policies 
of the Department of Education which are regarded as detrimental 
to the welfare of the teachers and to the progress of the schools. 

"The Union has aided the Chicago teachers in their splendid 
fight for the right to organize. It stands ready to support any other 
body of teachers that is struggling for its professional rights. In 
the struggle of any individual teacher against unfavorable conditions 
and against invasions of professional privilege the Union card bids 
fair soon to be a "don't-worry" insurance worth having. 

"A long struggle is being made against the imminence of an 
increase to a 210-day year, and against the lengthening of the school 
day. This activity of the Union is in line with its purpose of im- 
proving the conditions under which teaching is done." 

And again from the same article : 

"As a recent indication of official good will President Willcox 
of the Board of Education said to the president of the Teachers' 
Union and to the writer that he believed a system of co-poreation 
l)etween the Board of Superintendents, the principal of the several 
schools, and committees of teachers could work out on practical 
lines the problem of improving the teaching. This is democ- 
racy of the kind the Union wants. Thus, the battle for profes- 
sional rights is far from being hopeless. Victory will crown our 
efforts if the teachers will come to the support of the Union in 
such numbers as will give conviction of the importance of our de- 
mands. 

"The Union proposes under any circumstances to continue its 
fight for the protection of teachers against injustice of all kinds, 
to fight for the elimination of the rating system, to fight for sound 
and just pension principles, for scientific salary adjustment, for the 
democratization of schooLs, for the reform of the psycho-phj-sical 
examination of children, for a scientific evaluation of the Gary and 
other special administrative experiments, for a modern course of 
stud}', for making the Board of Superintendents a body of spe- 
cialists, for a small, paid and elective Board of Education, and for 
the general and fundamental improvement of the .schools and their 
government. 

"The members of the Union, united in their opposition to at- 
tempts to curtail the intellectual freedom of the teachers, are fighting 
for the maintenance of the ideals of democracy, for the principles 

12 



which our glorious flag symbolizes. They, as other teachers of the 
embryonic citizens, realize that they must continue their struggle if 
democracy is to triumph and autocracy to perish. You teachers, in 
a sense, are the last line of trenches betwen fighting democracy and 
fortified autocracy. Whether you realize it or not, on you the fate 
of the worker and the nation depends. Great is your responsibility 
and glorious the burden you are called upon to shoulder. Do you 
fell yourself ready for the batt'e as the champion of humanity 
and democracy? If so, join us and help us to win a glorious 
victory." 

Has the Schoolmasters' Association at any time pro- 
posed a set of principles like these which were presented by 
The American Federation of Teachers, and endorsed by 
The American Federation of Labor in National Convention, 
Baltimore, November 24, 1916? 

1. The right of teachers to organize and affiliate with labor must 
be recognized. 

2. If our children during their most impressionable years are to 
have the benefit of daily contact with examples of upstanding American 
manhood and womanhood, and not to be exposed to an atmosphere of 
servility in the schoolroom, teachers must be given warning and a hearing 
before being separated from the service. 

3. The teacher must be guaranteed the opportunity to make his 
due influence felt in the community, working thru the school chiefly, 
but free to work thru all the avenues of citizenship. 

4. The control of the teaching staff should be removed from the 
Board of Education, and placed in the hands of the professional expert, 
the Superintendent of Schools. 

5. If our democracy is not to be crippled at its source, democratic 
school administration must be secured by insuring to the teacher an 
effective voice in that administration. 

6. The schools must be removed from politics by the application 
of the merit principle of civil service to the employment, advancement, 
and dismissal of teachers, thus securing tenure during efficiency. 

7. The work of the teacher, now notoriously ill-paid, determines 
the quality of our future citizenship, and should receive financial recog- 
nition more nearly commensurate with its importance to the community. 

8. Vocational education should be encouraged, but only under a 
'unit system.' 

9. The people should directly control educational policies thru the 
popular election of boards of education. 

10. A system of free textboods is an essential of genuinely free 
and democratic public schools. 

11. Enlightened public policy demands adequate pension provisions 
for public school teachers. 

Item I. (b) The members of this group "feel under no 
obligation to respect the opinions of their superior officers; 
and they view any official act as 'autocratic', and out of har- 

13 



mony with the spirit of 'democracy' unless it meets with their 
complete intellectual approval." (Page 13.) 

In support of the second part of the charge 
Our Answer: (lb) the Schoolmasters say the organ of the 

Teachers' Union, the American Teacher, has 
published "scurrilous attacks" upon school officials, and has 
held them up to ridicule. The Schoolmasters might have 
said truly that The American Teacher " respects neither the 
opinions' nor the feeling of that particular kind of superior 
officer that defies the regulations oi common decency as be- 
tween men and women, or browbeats or covertly insults 
teachers under his supervision, or wrongly and viciously 
accuses teachers or pupils under his power". The maga- 
zine may criticise the policy of other and respectable su- 
periors, but that is a civic right which apparently the 
Schoolmasters do not question! ■ 

This charge of the Schoolmasters refers to a partially 
successful campaign started by The American Teacher in 
November, 1916. It was only partially successful, because 
the rank and file of the teachers are not yet ready to rise 
against the imposition of incompetent or immoral supervis- 
ing officers. Besides, there are many honest and high- 
minded teachers v\^ho still have conventional notions of what 
is "proper" in methods of improving conditions. These no- 
tions operate frequently to permit rascals to maintain their 
places at the public crib. Thus, the persons who profit by 
the persistence of conventions are the rascals themselves. 
The plan of The American Teacher was referred to edi- 
torially in the December, 1916, number, as follows: 

"The special evil that afflicts the educational system of New 
York City is what we have designated as 'wasteful, unfair, in- 
competent and inhuman supervision.' The teachers of New York 
have submitted to this evil in its numerous forms until the ability 
to realize the conditions under which it affects every teacher has 
become well-nigh rudimentary. There is widespread dissatisfaction 
among the teachers in that city, but it has not been clear just how 
we were to begin on the gigantic undertaking of creating livable 
conditions free from inhuman supervision. One thing that has al- 
ways operated to hinder improvement is the fear of the teachers to 
say or do anything that would give us a good start. Fear is the 
weapon by which the oppressors keep their power. 

"It thus appears that successful campaign against the forces that 
are responsible for oppressive supervision (and certain forces em- 
bodied in human beings are certainly responsible for its maintenance) 

14 



must be inaugurated either indirectly \vith the slow-moving aid of 
the oppressed, or directly by some method that will undermine the 
credit and standing of the oppressors more quickly. The latter 
method has already been inaugurated, and the experiment is being 
observed by us close!}-. If our readers will watch the 'Fluoroscope' 
series they will be interested in our new attempt to 'get under the 
skin' of the 'System.' " 

The first Fluoroscope article appeared in November, 
1916, and began as follows : 

The Fluoroscope* 

On numerous occasions The American Teacher has called at- 
tention to the fact that educational systems, especially the educa- 
tional system of the City of New York, have given slight attention 
to the matter of expressing in definite terms the standards of quali- 
fication for the highest positions on the technical staff. The sad 
result of this indifference to the public welfare is the continuation 
in office of many principals and superintendents who are far from 
being fit representatives of an important public service. From time 
to time we shall stand up some sample characters before the fluoro- 
scope to show what an educational system acting without intelligence 
and social understanding can reallj^ do to us. Our readers will 
fully understand that years of submission to what outsiders would 
instantly call intolerable conditions tends to make it difficult for 
teachers to tell the wholesome truth about their superior officers. 
That fact operates to protect many officials who should be kicked 
out of the service summarily. If teachers do not show signs of 
wanting to rid themselves of so ominous a burden, they wall soon 
be fighting an uphill fight to hold the respect of the public and of 
the children themselves. 

We are asked frequently how such and such a person could be 
appointed to the position of principal or of superintendent. The 
answer is either that the appointee is the personal friend of a 
person already in power, or one known to be ready lo carry out 
the will of that person in power or of the group he represents. 
There is seldom a thought of a duty to the public, and the ap- 
pointing power cares nothing for your "mushy" talk about ideals. 

The schools of New York City suffer more from the evils aris- 
mg out of a w^asteful, unfair, incompetent and inhuman supervision 
than from all other causes. We propose to do something to dis- 
credit and punish wrong doing in our branch of the public service. 



* The Fluoroscope, as many of our readers do not know, is an 
instrument that makes visible the shadowings of the X-rays, and is 
thus a convenient means for discovering what goes on inside an 
organic body, or for locating hardware swallowed by a baby. 

15 



To his associates on the teaching staff years ago he was a con- 
ceited and ill-mannered ass; so is he yet. But it is supposed that 
the City Superintendent knew he could be relied on to do his per- 
sonal bidding, and the man who could not command the respect 
of his fellows while a teacher was appointed to the principalship of 
a high school. There his subordinates find it advisable to conceal 
their contempt. "You can't change him," they say, "so what is the 
us of making a fuss about it?' 

The nearer by a tyrant is, the more he can oppress. A principal 
has only to stride down the corridor and he is on you, while the City 
Superintendent is miles away, and you may never see him at all. 
In a system that invites tyranny nothing is more natural than that 
the principal should slam his fist on the table at teachers' meeting 
and yell, "That's an order!" "We'll not discuss that; that's my 
order!" Thus our principal gives us a sample of his temperament 
and of his executive ability. We submit to the insult, for ''What's 
the use of kicking; we can't change him?" 



Our principal is so good an administrator that he can turn over 
to willing hands the many tasks that would otherwise swamp him. 
This system of administration besides being followed by our princi- 
pal is followed by administrators who use the time thus given them 
for general constructive thinking and planning. But instead of 
thinking and planning, outside of spasm.odic imitations, our superior 
spends part of his time rushing into the lime-light of the business 
activity of the school and out again, storming, yelling and stamping 
hardest at the beginning or at the end of the term when there is 
most doing. This output of energy on the part of the principal 
increases the confusion, causes the weary teachers to become more 
weary, makes the children laugh and gives the village barber more 
to gossip about. 

Between times our principal storms into the general office where 
a thoughtless boy who "has broken his pledged word" has sat in 
silent uselessness for an hour or more waiting his turn to be in- 
sulted by the superior officer of us all. We hear the loud, harsh 
voice, we see the straining neck muscles, and the angry face, black 
with surcharged blood vessels, and we feel the nervous jar set up 
in our bodies, and still we sa)% "Oh what's the use of kicking 
against it all?" "You can't change him." And there we sit and 
wait stupidly for the storm to pass. 

And it does pass, for a pretty girl pupil goes by the window 
with her physical training class that is marching in the yard. Off 
the principal rushes to the window, and looking out exclaims to 
everybody in the room, "My, but that girl has a wonderful com- 
plexion! What remarkable hair! And what beautiful eyes and 
statuesque shoulders." And still, everybody said, "What's the use 
of kicking? You can't change an old dog like him. Forget about it." 

16 



The identity of this principal was promptly recognized 
by everyone who knew the high school principals, and of 
course by the teachers in the particular school. But most 
of the teachers there strongly disapproved, and some wanted 
to start a protest, but there was nothing to protest, since 
the characterization was known to be correct. The article 
was indirectly responsible for starting an official inquiry. 
Serious charges of an immoral nature were lodged against 
the principal, but nothing came of them. A Responsible 
Superintendent said to a member of The American Teacher 
staff that an important member of the Board of Education 
believed the man should be transferred, but that he tvoulcl 
not stand for seeing him punished. (Italics ours, for the 
purpose of emphasizing the social insolence of such a state- 
ment.) Meanwhile, the school stands discredited and in- 
effective in its community. 

In the case of another principal described by us in 
April, 1917, the results were more satisfactory, since his 
promotion to another school was prevented as a direct result 
of our agitation. Instead, he was sent to a less important 
school, in spite of the protest of his political sponsor who 
complained that the man was being demoted. 

The Schoolmasters take us to task for all this, and say 
that we hold "this attitude of mental and moral superiority, 
and feel under no obligation to respect the opinions of su- 
perior officers" (p. 13). And all the support they give for 
this opinion is the fact that we have attacked certain "su- 
periors" in the manner indicated. But we have turned our 
attention to other mehods of social correction which on the 
whole pay better. 

The Schoolmasters' Association that complains so bit- 
terly because the Teachers' Union and The American 
Teacher are essentially critical-minded organs of public 
opinion may be a little dismayed to find that no less a per- 
sonage than a District Superintendent of Schools, Dr. 
Arthur C. Perry, Jr. (who has been in the service of the 
Department of Education for twenty-five years) , as recently 
as December, 1917, wrote in a pamphlet entitled "The Prob- 
lem Confronting the New Board of Education" : 

" Teachers have a cynical attitude as regards the ad- 
ministration of the schools. There is no enthusiasm for their im- 

17 



mediate emplojers, the Board of Education. Their feeling is wide- 
spread that they must protect themselves against unfriendl}' adminis- 
tration, that their employers have little interest in their welfare, 
and that to gain ordinary consideration they are obliged to use the 
pressure of legislative enactment or public opinion. 

" Teachers have a skeptical attitude as to recognition of 

professional merit. They indorse the civil service idea in theory, 
but have little confidence in the Board of Examiners. Eligible 
lists for higher positions so far vary from common knowledge as to 
relative merit that teachers fall back upon the rather uninspiring 
maxim that virtue is its own reward. The teachers see cases of 
faithful service and unusual ability overruled by meticulous tests. 
They note solemn official rulings by the Board of Examiners that 
a teacher is unqualified to do work that he has already been doing 
with official recognition of approval. 

"Teachers feel, too, that much of the supervision of their w^ork 
is of a hypercritical rather than of a constructive nature. They 
feel that in many cases originality and initiative are less desired 
than conformity with the particular crotchets of official superiors. 
It is pointless to deny intention to foster this spirit among teachers 
and supervisors; the fact is that there is abroad an attitude of 
subservience on the part of many and of disgust on the part of 
others because often sycophancy seems to be rewarded. In sheer 
pity, one sometimes wishes that a law might be enacted compelling 
'band wagons' to carry destination signs in plain sight, so that those 
scrambling to get aboard might avoid accident."' 

SECTION II. 

Item (a) "A meeting of DeWitt Clinton teachers was 
hell at the Peg Woffington Coffee House, April 21, 1917, 
under the auspices of the Teachers' Council of DeWitt Clin- 
ton High School, at which 'many teachers expressed their 
opinions of the requirement that all teachers sign the loyalty 
pledge.' " (Page 5.) 

There were three purposes that animated 
Answer 2 (a) : the speakers at the Peg Woffington meet- 
ing. The most important was the organ- 
ization of a public opinion among the Clinton teachers in 
favor of the eradication of Mr. Dotey's infamous spying 
system conducted by himself and the Dotey Squad. (Mr. 
Dotey is a member of the Schoolmasters' Committee which 
is engaging our attention.) A committee of teachers was ap- 
pointed to investigate the whole situation. The investiga- 
tion never came to fruition only because the speedy ap- 
proach of the vacation interrupted school activities. 

18 



The second animating purpose was the organization 
among the Clinton teachers of a democratic movement, the 
main object of which was to democratize Principal Paul's 
conduct, especially in relation to the Teachers' Council and 
the monthly teachers' meeting. 

The third purpose of the meeting was a discussion of 
the free-minded teacher's attitude toward loyalty pledges 
exacted under the humiliating incentive of compulsion and 
official bull-dozing. 

Item 2 (b) "The attitude of this group toward the war 
is regarded as unpatriotic by fellow-teachers, by pupils and by 
the parents of pupils" (p. 5), 

No evidence is offered to prove this start- 
Answer 2 (b) : ling assertion. 

Why haven't they the courage to enumer- 
ate by name the teachers who regard "the attitude of this 
group as unpatriotic"? Are they afraid to reveal the sin- 
ister fact that at Clinton High School the faculty is sharply 
divided into two groups: the small but evilly influential 
clique of manipulators and reactionaries on the one hand 
and the large group of liberal minded teachers, exponents 
of open diplomacy and democracy in education, on the other 
hand? • 

The teachers know that Clinton High has the largest 
number of members in the Teachers' Union of any school 
in New York City. Does the educational enemy refer to 
them as unpatriotic? Why has not the Schoolmasters' Com- 
mittee the courage to mention them by name that charges 
of "conduct unbecoming a teacher" may be brought against 
them? The failure to specify by name who the unpatriotic 
teachers are is, in our opinion, a shamefully disloyal act, 
for which the authors of the pamphlet deserve to be pun- 
ished. It is a very feeble patriotism that is afraid to come 
out into the open. 

Which pupils do the gentlemen refer to? 

The members of the Dotey squad? Which parents do 
they refer to? The parents of the members of the Dotey 
squad ? 

Item 2 (c) Certain teachers in this group signed a pro- 
test against signing the Board of Education's loyalty pledge, 
under date of April 23, 1917 (p. 5). 

19 



It is the evident purpose of the Schoolmas- 
Answer 2 (c) : ters, and for many months has "been the 
more violent determination of their zeal- 
ous sponsor, the American Defense Society, to put the 
brand of disloyalty upon those teachers who objected to the 
compulsory signing of a pledge of loyalty. Apparently, it 
made no difference to the American Defense Society 
whether the protesting teachers actually signed the pledge 
or not. It is fair to assume this because a responsible mem- 
ber of the executive committee of the American Defense 
Society circulated a petition calling upon the Board of Edu- 
cation to dismiss all those teachers who had signed the pro- 
test, although a very small number had not signed the 
pledge. The A.D.S. would deny the right of protest. 

The Board of Education's pledge was the second pledge 
that had been presented to the teachers for signing. The 
earlier one was called the "Mayor's Loyalty Pledge", and 
had been formulated by the Defense Committee appointed 
by Mayor John Purroy Mitchel. Reports came to the 
Teachers' Union that many principals were compelling 
teachers and pupils to sign this pledge. The usual form of 
compulsion which members of an autocratic system well 
understand M^as being employed, as it had been employed 
the year before in the pension bill fight. But a great many 
teachers, and apparently some members of the Board of 
Education itself declined to sign the Mayor's pledge, be- 
cause they believed either that a pledge was unnecessary, or 
that this movement was being carried out for the political 
benefit of Mr. Mitchel. 

In May, 1917, The American Teacher published the fol- 
lowing article showing how the campaign for the signing 
of the Mayor's loyalty pledge was carried on. This cam- 
paign added to the state of irritation against official com- 
pulsion in the educational system : 

"In New York City, a group of self-constituted guardians of 
loyalty have in their way helped to prevent their fellow-citizens 
from appreciating to the fullest that the present is a war for De- 
mocracy. Even hefore the war began, many felt a taste of their 
guardianship. A pledge of loyalty drawn up by the Mayor's Com- 
mittee on National Defense was circulated by the Board of Educa- 
tion among the teachers of the city, with the distinct undeijstanding 
that those who wished might sign. The Committe in its letter to 
principals, however, said very curtly, "Have your teachers sign the 

20 



enclosed pledge of loyalty." War at this time had not yet been 
declared, and every citizen presumably might still decide for himself 
whether he agreed with the sentiments of the pledge, which were 
to all intents and purposes a declaration in favor of war. Many 
refused to sign it on this grotmd; while others felt that it was silly 
to question their loyalty to that government that they loved more 
than any other. Among these were members of the Board of Edu- 
cation and principals of elementary and high schools. 

"In the majority of the schools of the city, however, the great- 
est possible pressure was brought to bear upon those teachers who 
did not feel that they could or cared to sign the pledge. One hun- 
dred percent was demanded, and what a principal demands he 
usually gets. This was the first step to impress upon the teachers 
the essentially democratic purpose of this war. Sign or get out! 
was the slogan uf the metropolitan press, which has so often and so 
unmercifully condemned our President when he refused to do their 
bidding. 

"Some details will not be amiss. In the Boys' High School, 
Brooklyn, four teachers refused to sign, one of them being a 
Quaker. At a school assembly the principal, Mr. Janes, in address- 
ing the boj-s told them that there were four teachers in his school 
who were a disgrace to the school. In the Girls' High School, Dr. 
Felter, in an excess of zeal forced every girl to sign, disregarding 
the order that only those above eighteen be asked to sign. When 
several girls refused, he ordered them to resign from the Arista, 
the most important school society. Many of the girls, of course, 
refused. The president of the Board of Education was informed 
of this high-handed proceeding. His secretary was astounded when 
told that many of the signatures had been secured under com- 
pulsion, tie immediately ordered the principal to revoke his de- 
mand, informing him that he had overstepped his authority. In 
the Commercial High School, Brooklyn, Dr. Fairley took it upon 
himself to decide that .only disloyal teachers would refuse to sign, 
by sending around an order which read : 'All loyal teachers will 
sign the pledge.' 

"In the De Witt Clinton High School the word was passed 
around that the names of all those who refused to sign would be 
presented to the principal. More than twenty teachers publicly pro- 
tested against this Prussian proceeding. Dr. Paul was slightly 
taken aback, and in some trepidation, he posted a notice informing 
the teachers that anyone desiring to withdraw his name from the 
pledge, or to add his name, might do so. 

"If teachers were to be compelled to sign the pledge, one might 
inquire why the Mayor's Committee should have taken the trouble 
to call the document in question, a pledge.' A pledge connotes 
agreement and willingness. If doubt and unwillingness to sign are 
to be brushed aside as being unworthy of consideration, then let 
us frankly call the Mayor's document, an article of compulsion — 
indeed, a draft of the teachers' conscience." 

21 



The campaign for the signing of the Mayor's pledge not 
being altogether satisfactory, it seems to have occurred to 
the Board of Education that a special pledge should be 
formulated and sent out to the teachers for signatures. The 
discussion at the Board meeting in which the form of the 
pledge was adopted indicated clearly that teachers who re- 
fused to sign the pledge should be dismissed. Responsi- 
bility for these threats has since been disavowed by the 
High School Committee of the Board of Education in pri- 
vate inquisition with the President of the Teachers' Union 
as guest (December, 1917). The official action as inter- 
preted by this committee was that the teachers were invited 
to join with the Board of Education in an expression of 
loyalty to the President. If the friendly spirit implied in 
the phrase "The Board of Education invites" had been ex- 
pressed clearly at the time the form of the pledge was sent 
to the teachers, it is inconceivable that a protest would have 
been prepared. And it is altogether probable that the sig- 
natures would have been given with enthusiasm, in spite of 
the fact that the teachers or their representatives had no 
part in formulating the pledge. It is possible that the 
pledge would have been improved. 

However, as matters stood at the time in the under- 
standing of the teachers, there was deep resentment in the 
minds probably of hundreds of teachers against this addi- 
tional act of unauthorized compulsion on the part of educa- 
tional authorities. The chief reason why more did not sign 
the protest was fear of the same authorities whom bitter 
experience has taught us to guard against. The teachers 
for a long time have been growing restive in the face of the 
continued assumption on the part of officials that commands 
have only to be made to be obeyed. 

The members of the American Defense Society may 
possibly be excused for holding an opinion which is com- 
mon, that teachers like children should do whatever they 
are told. Our fellow-teachers of the Schoolmasters' Asso- 
ciation doubtless also hold this view, and in fact most 
teachers will agree that submission is a necessary virtue. 
But the radical movement among teachers is a movement 
toward professional self-respect. 

The protest against the compulsory signing of the 
Board of Education's loyalty pledge was signed by eighty- 

22 



seven teachers. The Teachers' Union had nothing whatever 
to do with the formulation or the circulation of the protest. 
Many of the signers are not known to those persons who 
are particularly attacked by the Schoolmasters. It is there- 
fore only as a professional obligation that the Union takes 
up the defense of individuals whose sincerity in protesting, 
it has every reason to suppose is genuine. The protest was 
addressed and sent to the Board of Education about April 
21, 1917. It reads as follows : 

''Mr. A, Emerson Palmer, 

Secretary of the Board of Education, 
500 Park Ave., New York City. 
Sir: 

The public press announces that the following loyalty 
pledge has been approved by the Board of Education, and is 
to be exacted of teachers in the public schools of New York 
City: 'We, the undersigned teachers in the public schools 
of the City of New York, declare our unqualified allegiance 
to the Government of the United States of America, and 
pledge ourselves by word and example to teach and impress 
upon our pupils the duty of loyal obedience and patriotic 
service as the highest ideal of American citizenship'. 

Repeated reference to the pledge by members in meet- 
ings of the Board of Education indicates that it is the in- 
tention of the Board to submit the pledge to teachers in 
such manner as will practically compel the teachers to sign. 

In anticipation of w^hat we understand to be the pur- 
pose in this matter, we, the undersigned, teachers in the 
public schools of the City of New York, desire to offer the 
following reasons for protesting against signing any pledge 
under compulsion. 

1. We are unable to understand why a pledge of loy- 
alty should be exacted of teachers, unless a considerable 
number of them are known to have engaged in treasonable 
activities, or to have given utterance to treasonable state- 
ments. Otherwise, to subject 22,000 teachers to the hu- 
miliation of being coerced into signing a document, which 
impliedly questions the loyalty of everyone, is unwarranted 
and unjust. 

2. We do not believe that treasonable acts or utter- 
ances have been witnessed in the schools of the City of New 

. 23 



York. If any have been so witnessed, we submit that it is 
the duty of the witnesses, or of the officers of the Depart- 
ment of Education, to call the facts to the attention of the 
authorities of the United States. 

3. None of the public speeches of the President of the 
United States, our most responsible national officer, have 
expressed suspicion of any group of citizens. On the con- 
trary, his latest address to the people, under date of April 
15, 1917, is a dignified appeal to a free people *to speak, act, 
and serve together' in the interests of 'democracy and hu- 
man rights*. Neither he nor the Congress has threatened 
coercion of the minds of our citizens. 

4. Therefore, as teachers hitherto deemed faithful and 
worthy employes of the City of New York, and as citizens 
of the United States, we demand the same freedom from 
implied suspicion of wrongdoing that is guaranteed to other 
employes of the City, and to other citizens of our country 
until charges specifying acts of disloyalty have been made 
and proved against us. 

In presenting this formal protest against an act of 
compulsion, we withhold nothing in our allegiance to the 
spirit and the principles of our American Republic". 

Many newspapers accused the protesting teachers of 
being disloyal, but the Evening Post interpreted the situa- 
tion correctly : 

Fountain Pen Patriotism 

Teachers in the high schools and the elementary schools who 
are protesting to the Board of Education against the compulsory 
signing of a "loj^alty pledge" are justified in their statement that "the 
humiliation of being coerced into signing a document which impli- 
edly questions the loyalty of every one is unwarranted and unjust." 
No utterances or actions by members of the teaching force have, 
since the declaration of war, supplied even an excuse for this 
general imputation of disloyalty. And even if such instances oc- 
curred here or there, it is senseless to forget that we are a com- 
munity of five million people, and to attach greater importance to 
an incident in New York than to similar occurrences here or there 
in the entire State of Illinois. The procedure arouses irritation and 
creates abroad a false impression of public sentiment. If we heard 
that the school teachers of Berlin were being compelled to si:'n a 
loyalty pledge, how speedily we should jump to the conclusion thr.; 
the Berlin public schools are permeated with sedition. It is ;, 
serious question whether the City Administration has not been ex- 

24 



pending energies that might be more iisefullj' employed in the na- 
tional cause on this fussy patriotism of the fountain-pen. The sign- 
ing of petitions and pledges means nothing. The West and South 
have chosen to show their loyalty by rallying to the recruiting offices 
at a rate that the voluble East might well take to heart. — The New 
York Evening Post, April 23, 1917. 

Of those signers personally known to the Teachers' 
Union committee having in charge the publication of this 
reply, the following facts may be taken as an indication 
that signers to the protest are not "pro-German", and that 
they are pro-American. Mr. D. G. Krane is in the army in 
France; Mr. A. M. Works is the son of Rear Admiral 
Works ; Mr. H. Heller is in the Aviation Corps ; Mr. M. G. 
Michaels is the most active worker for war interests in 
DeWitt Clinton High School; Mr. L. Covello has enlisted 
in the army; Mr. G. M. Lapolla has enlisted in a hospital 
unit ; Miss A. Gertrude Jacob has been in the Friends' Re- 
patriation Service for several months in France; (largely at 
her own expense) ; Mrs. Mary J. Mochderffer has been lead- 
ing important war work in churches ; Mr. Meyer Rosenblatt 
(beyond the draft age) has enlisted in the Engineering 
Corps, and is now in France. Israel Bludinger is in the 
army; Mr. M. C. Opperman, over the draft age, has been 
in service in a Plattsburg Corps, Several others have given 
conspicuous service voluntarily in several of the kinds of 
war work. 

Item 2 (d) "The American Teacher in an editorial (June, 
1917) says 'The (loyalty) pledge has some points of interest, 
albeit narrow and primitive in its idealism' and that 'it may 
be well not to be over-anxious to yield or teach loyal obedi- 
ence yet awhile' " (p. 38), 

The Schoolmasters have here deliberately 
Answer 2 (d) : picked out from an editorial two sentences 

that suited their purpose of making The 
American Teacher appear disloyal, without directly saying 
it, which of course they were afraid to do. 

They did not quote the first paragraphs which pointed 
out the futility of a pledge as a means of distinguishing the 
loyal from the disloyal, because they knevj that was true, 
and would be recognized quickly as being true. They were 
not fair enough, and did not mean to be fair enough, to 
quote the paragraph which discussed the situation in which 
unscrupulous interests might conceivably secure power in 

25 



our national government as they have in times past and 
would gain much if they could depend upon the pledged 
'loyal obedience' of the citizens. Two of our adversaries on 
the Committee of the Schoolmasters we understand are li- 
censed to teach the subject of history, and they ought to 
know that in a country that creates its own government, 
loyal obedience seems as much out of place as it is unneces- 
sary. Since our government is founded on the presupposed 
agreement to abide by the laws passed by our representa- 
tives, it should not be wondered at if thoughtful persons 
look with suspicion on the proposal to be loyally obedient to 
their own elected representatives. In war as in peace the 
laws hold. There is no standing for anyone on any other 
footing a democratic government. 

Section 3. "An article appeared in the New Republic 
of May 26, 1917, entitled, "The Religion of Free Men", and 
signed by members of this group as Conscientious Objectors 
and their Champions' ". 

As an indication of the dishonest methods prac- 
Answer : tised by the Schoolmasters' committee one of the 
quotations given in the pamphlet makes the 
teachers say that "military participation in war is tanta- 
mount to committing murder". 

The article itself contains the following complete state- 
ment: "The one ineradicable fact which no amount of offi- 
cial intimidation can pulverize out of existence is that there 
is a type of man to whom (military) participation in war is 
tantamount to committing murder." Isn't this complete 
statement a statement of fact, pure and simple? Hasn't 
the government officially recognized the existence of that 
fact in its large grant of tolerance to Quakers and conscien- 
tious objectors? Are the Quakers taken to task by any sane 
patriotic American because they represent the type to whom 
military participation in war is tantamount to committing 
murder? 

Incidentally, it may be interesting to know that of the 
twelve teachers who signed the article in question there 
is not one whose loyalty has ever been questioned; on the 
contrary several of the signers have been elevated to higher 
positions in the school system ; every one of these persons is 
rendering faithful service in co-operation with govern- 
mental activities. In fact, one of the signers has enlisted. 

26 



What shall we say of the ignorant impudence of that 
Schoolmasters' committee which attacks an article admitted 
into a journal often referred to as the "semi-official organ 
of the Administration"? We fear that those gentlemen 
somehow or other managed to miss the point of the article. 
The key to the "Religion of Free Men" is contained in the 
following sentence: "Hence the philosophic value of tol- 
erance. To keep alive genuine tolerance in war time is the 
greatest single achievement to which rationalists can dedi- 
cate themselves." 

Professor Lovejoy, whom they rather triumphantly 
quote as a hostile critic, himself gladly admits : "From the 
conclusion that genuinely 'conscientious' objectors should 
be given non-combatant duties to perform, few, I take it, 
will dissent. Your number appears to be small ; and of 
your scruples, the country may well be generously consid- 
erate." (New Republic, June 16, 1917.) 

The Schoolmasters' committee may not have read the 
famous Report of the Committee on Academic Freedom in 
War Time, in which the following illuminating sentence ap- 
pears: (p. 35) "In framing the draft law of 1917 Congress 
adopted the principle that persons whose objections to such 
service are unquestionably due to moral or religious scruples 
should be exempt. ..." 

The chairman of the committee that issued this liberal- 
minded report is Prof. Lovejoy. 

Item 3 (a) "The leaders of this group are active sup- 
porters of the Hillquit-Berger branch of the Socialist Party" 
(p. 4). 

Neither the Teachers' Union nor The 
Our Answer 3 (a) : American Teacher has any connection 
with the Socialist Party. Furthermore, 
not a single person connected with the Union or The Amer- 
ican Teacher who has voted the Socialist ticket, whether a 
member of the Party or not, has been permitted to influence 
the actions of the Teachers Union or the magazine in the 
partisan interests of the Socialist Party. 

What does the committee mean by the Hillquit-Berger 
branch of the Socialist Party? If the phrase is intended 
to imply the endorsement by party members of the St. Louis 
resolutions, passed by the Emergency Convention of the 
Socialist Party, opposing America's entrance into the war, 

27 



there are several vexing problems for the gentlemen to 
face : (a) What if they are informed that the majority of 
the persons under attack are not members of the Socialist 
party? What if they are informed that those members 
of the Socialist Party w^ho are under attack did not en- 
dorse the St. Louis resolution, but on the contrary exer- 
cised their right as Socialists to oppose it? There is no 
foundation in the "suspicion" that more than one member of 
the group under attack endorsed the St. Louis resolution. 
The most vital question involved, which some of us thought 
had been settled by the Constitution long ago, is whether a 
teacher's political beliefs shall be construed as a basis for 
the charge of conduct unbecoming a teacher? Shall a citi- 
zen be required to relinquish his inalienable rights when he 
enters the teaching profession? What a grotesquely un- 
American doctrine! Imagine a committee of lawyers -or 
physicians or engineers daring to abridge the rights of their 
colleagues by reference to their private political beliefs ! 

It may surprise our adversaries, the Schoolmasters' As- 
sociation, to be informed that in well-informed quarters 
outside the Socialist Party there is a considerable body of 
intellectual public opinion which recognizes the right of 
citizens to differ from the current conviction on issues con- 
nected with the war. For example. Judge Hand, in his 
charge to the jury that heard the case of the Masses editors, 
said: 

It is the constitutional right of the citizen to express such 
opinion about the war, the participation of the United States in it, 
about the desirability of peace, about the merits or demerits of the 
system of conscription, and about the moral rights or claims of 
conscientious objectors to be exempt from conscription. 

It is the constitutional right of the citizen to express such 
opinions, even though they are opposed to the opinions or policies 
of the administration, and even though the expression of such 
opinions may unintentionally or indirectly discourage enlistment or 
recruiting. 

Every citizen has a right, without intent to obstruct the re- 
cruiting or enlistment service, to think, feel and express : 

(a) Disapproval or abhorrence of any law or policy or pro- 
posed law or policy, including the declaration of war, the conscrip- 
tion act, and the so-called sedition clauses of the espionage act. 

(b) Belief that the war is not or was not a war for democracy. 

(c) Belief that our participation in it was forced or induced 
by powers with selfish interests to be served thereby. 

28 



(d) Belief that our participation was against the will of the 
majority of the citizens or voters of the country. 

(e) Belief that the self-sacrifice of persons who elect to suffer 
for freedom of conscience is admirable. 

(f) Belief that war is horrible. 

(g) Belief that the allies' war aims were or are selfish and 
undemocratic. 

Item 3 (b) "The American Teacher, the official organ 
of the Teachers' Union, in the November, 1917, number, ad- 
vocated the election of Morris Hillquit for Mayor" (p. 14). 

We challenge any person to find a line 
Our Answer 3 (b) : in the November, 1917, American 

Teacher which advocates the election 
of Morris Hillquit for mayor. The statement that The 
American Teacher advocated the election of Morris Hillquit 
for mayor is certainly not true in the form stated, and be- 
comes true only by inference when the committee of the 
Schoolmasters manifests that degree of intellectual hon- 
esty necessary to get along amicably with honest-minded 
persons. The article in question is entitled "The School in 
Politics". It received much favorable comment and some 
unfavorable comment from various parts of the country. 
The article was not intended to serve as partisan propa- 
r-anda for the socialists, but was intended at a time when 
the political campaign was much in the public mind to 
bring some pertinent social points of view before the minds 
of teachers. Our critics would scarcely have the effrontery 
to take the magazine to task for seeming to stand for "the 
principle that the city is to be conducted for the people who 
live in the city, not for the people who make a business of 
dealing with those who live in the city." They would not 
dare attack The American Teacher, because the magazine 
indicates its passing, though definite, interest in the pro- 
gram of a political party, more or less successfully man- 
aged, that is primarily concerned with the welfare of hu- 
man beings rather than with the question of profits or per- 
sonal favors. 

But these critics do dare to ignore what they certainly 
must know is the main point, the human issue, and en- 
deavor to turn the feeling of the great public against any 
group that seems to agree in any way with a political party 
that is credited with having certain reservations of policy 
on the conduct of the war. In that our critics are dishonest. 

29 



Nowhere in the files of The American Teacher, and no- 
where in the actions of the Teachers' Union is there any 
statement which can be made to signify an agreement with 
the SociaHst platform on the war adopted by the Emer- 
gency Convention at St. Louis, in August, 1917. 

Since the Schoolmasters seem to. have given consider- 
able attention to the views of the President of the Teachers' 
Union, it may be worth while to state that this person does 
not now, and never has, agreed with the majority report 
of the St. Louis convention. He has also recognized from 
the first that the challenge of Germany in connection with 
the submarine boat policy made inevitable our participa- 
tion in the war. Furthermore, he interpreted the war as an 
actual war of defense for our country, in view of the policy 
of world domination long ago entered upon by Germany, 
and demonstrated to us concretely by the German admiral 
in Manila Bay twenty years ago. 

Apparently the Schoolmasters are unable to under- 
stand the psychology of minds that are organized differently 
from their own. To them as well as to most of our educa- 
tional officials, our press and the general run of plain citi- 
zens who acclaim Democracy but do not understand its 
methods, there is only one attitude of mind that a true 
patriot can have. That attitude is one of impatience and 
even of accusation against all persons who do not reach the 
same aggressive conclusion with reference to the war at a 
given time. Consonant with this state of mind is violence 
of temper and an ostentatious striking out against anybody 
and everybody who in any conceivable waj^ objects to the 
methods by which individuals charged with authority are 
trying to win the war. These are the persons who de- 
nounce as disloyal all who resist illegal compulsion, such as 
uncalled-for loyalty pledges, and demand that the purposes 
of the war shall be made clear as essential phases are en- 
tered upon. 

In this connection it may not be amiss to quote from 
an editorial by Dr. Frank Crane, appearing in the N. Y. 
Globe of May 4, 1918. The editorial reads in part: 

"There are certain glowing patriots, with a double row 
of front teeth, who imagine that their loyalty can be best 
exhibited by turning occasionally and taking a bite at some 

30 



one of the rest of us who according to our lights, are also 
hunting the Hun." 

"These seem to be ticklish times. You not only have to 
be a patriot, but you have to agree in every detail of ex- 
pediency with each red hot gentleman who thinks he knows 
just how to win the war." 

"It's all right to be a patriot, but it is not necessary also 
to be an ass." 

The Schoolmasters may have forgotten that many 
Americans thought after the destruction of the Lusitania 
that our place was beside the Allies fighting the menace to 
civilization. But the great mass of American people still 
did not want the war. If President Wilson had been a 
weaker and a less intelligent statesman America might have 
been in the war in 1913. But he was re-elected in 1916 on 
a platform of having kept the nation out of war. When 
war actually appeared to the great majority of Americans 
to be inevitable, the act declaring war won overwhelming 
approval. However, there was a considerable body who 
were not yet convinced that this war was necessary. There 
M^ere tvv'o ways of handling this situation. One was to hunt 
down all war opponents and drive them to the trenches, just 
as wouM be done in any autocracy. The other step was to 
keep our democratic ideals clean, and trust to the logic of 
events and of conviction to work out the national unity of 
purpose. Happily, the latter has prevailed. 

The following authoritative statement by the Executive 
Council of the American Federation of Teachers was over- 
looked by the Schoolmasters comm.ittee when it was search- 
ing for information dealing with the position of the 
Teachers' Union on the war. Incidentally, it may be im- 
portant to state to our readers that the Union was one of 
the very first organizations of teachers in New York to 
pledge voluntary support to the National government. 

A STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES 

By the Executive Council of the American Federation 
of Teachers 

"Believing liial: explicit statements of position on national and in- 
ternational problems will make for the unity of national purpose which 
is essential both for winning the war, and for reconstruction of a new 

31 



world after the war; and being aroused by the disquieting symptoms 
of the threatening cross-currents of purpose, even among those equally 
determined to win the war the Executive Council of the American 
Federation of Teachers sets forth the following: 

"1 Undivided support is pledged to President Woodrow Wilson, not 
alone as the constitutional national leader during a national crisis, but 
as the proved spokesman and interpreter of American spirit and thought- 
ful opinion. 

"2 Without discussing the immediate causes of the World War, 
it is clear that the world is being remade, and that more democratic 
forms of society are to replace the old. Powerful constructive forces 
are at work thruout the war's grim tragedy. Peace when it comes will 
witness a readjustment of every form of human activity to conform to 
a higher standard of justice and freedom. In all this, Woodrow Wilson 
stands preeminently as the prophet in a high place. 

"3 The campaign for Universal Military Service seems to us a 
peculiarly dangerous attack on the policy of the administration. If 
universal military service proves necessary to win the war, that will 
be another question, but that is not the contention of its present ad- 
vocates. 

"If the power and desire of Germany for military aggression are 
not broken, then indeed the world becomes an armed camp, and America 
must adopt drastic militaristic measures. But we are confidently and 
grimly determined to win, and to establish a league of nations which 
will free all peoples from the waste and burden of competitive arma- 
ments. We must even then take measures to supply our full quota of 
an international police force, but the necessary strength of that force 
cannot be prejudged before the terms of peace, the temper of peoples, 
and the degree of responsibility of governments to peoples after the war 
are known. To adopt universal military service now is to discredit our 
President's demands for disarmament, anti-imperialism, and a league 
of nations, and we fear that reactionary hostility to our President's 
liberal policy is the real motive actuating many of the powerful interests 
behind the campaign for universal military service. Let us utilize our 
cantonments for universal training for civic service after the war so that 
we may permanently achieve a sense of social solidarity. But let us 
prepare for the reconstruction of a new world after victor}-, and not 
deliberately offer to America a foretaste of the bitter fruits of defeat 
before she has begun to fight. 

"4 Democracy is the goal. There must be no diversion from its 
pathwaj'. All who believe in it, every organization favoring it, every 
forward-looking person must rally in the campaign for its attainment. 
Enemies there are, even in our very midst, who would betray us — those 
who seek Privilege, or would conserve everything of the past, those 
who would derive gain in the midst of immeasurable sacrifice, those 
who oppose the advance of Democracy anywhere, those who would bring 
confusion by setting up class, racial or religious prejudices, those who 
inject doubt and fear into the public mind — all for personal advantage, 
not as alien enemies, but as Americans, not those desirous of American 
military defeat, but of the defeat of American and world democracy. 

32 



"5 In Labor's hands rest both the decisiveness of our victory and 
the kind of world we shall live in. and the kind of hfe we shall live 
.L the wa^ The line between producer and parasite is daily being 
dl^n ITe deftnitely. and those who work with ^^nd and bra- - 
\r. .11 democracies aligning themselves with Labor. The British l^aDor 
Part h rm he challenge of leadership in the reconstruction with a 
caref'u% formulated program that reassures by its samty a. muc as 
by its radicalism. For in these days of the passing and ^ rth of c ^^^ 
zations while all radicals are not sane, all sane *"^" "^^^1 Pf.'^*^^', ^'^ 
radic"; And American Labor even now handicapped as British Labo 
I?as nt been for fifty years, is proving the most effective democratic 

'-''^^T^L Taf beln'Slled a schoolmaster's war. And certainly the 
super patrio ism and 'regimented docility' of the German people could 
Tave berdeveloped onfy by the German school system, carefully de^ 
sfgned o make unthinking obedience implicit in the ^^^^^^l^^ 
o train the remaining ten per cent in a ^--l-^^;-f ^^ .^^d and 
subordinate to authority. Without this ^"^version of childhood and 
youth even Prussian universal military traming could not have 
formed the German masses into brutalized automata. 

"'The German object lesson should force America to focus her a - 
tention on her schools. To make the world safe for democracy ou 

schools are secondary only to the winning of the war. if they are not 
schools are seco y y ^^ ^^^.^^^^ .^^^^^^^ ^^^^ ^^ 

ChinVo^f a strident na:i:nalism' as opposed to internationalism, rather 
than of a sane nationalism as the basis of the mternationahsm which 
s the hope of the world. The generations may grow up actuated b> 
a sympathetic understanding of other peoples, or by an embittered hatred 
!-tr!choo will decide, and on their decision hangs future peace or wan 
The schools must also consciously speciahze m training for ^ha 
most complex and difficult of all human -^-^^-^'. ;f I^^^^^^J^^^ ,i,f ^.^ 

because we are b compensations for the sacrifices 

them as communities. Purely one o the c p ^^^^^^ ^^^.^^ 

•■^cy- CHAS. B. STILLMAN, President 

C. C. WILLARD, Secretary 
Chicago, 111., March 13, 1918. 

"THE AMERICAN TEACHER" NEEDS NO DEFENSE 
How meaningless becomes the charge framed by the 
Schoolmasters' Association against The American Teacher 
when it is known that among its contributors have been men 
and women cherished by the thoughtful younger generation 

33 



as the great exponents of true democracy in education, 
among educators, and in life's daily intercourse. Our 
friends and contrihutors include : John Dewey, James Har- 
vey Robinson, William P. Montague, Harry Allen Over- 
street, Morris R. Cohen, Stephen P. Duggan, Paul Klapper, 
Louis S. Friedland, Sydney Mezes, Felix Grendon, Herman 
H. Home (all distinguished professors) ; Charlotte P. Gil- 
man, Florence Kelley, Winthrop D. Lane, Randolph Bourne, 
Charles Zueblin, Robert W. Bruere, Ira S. Wile, John Col- 
lier, Mrs. Amos Pinchot, Mrs. Agnes Warbasse, Judge Sam- 
uel D. Levy, Leonora O'Reilly, Mrs. Ida Fursman, Chas. B. 
Stillman, Ella Flagg Young (all distinguished publicists and 
social workers), . . . Could any magazine ask for more 
democratic and more sincerely progressive supporters ? The 
following are but a very few of the articles chosen from 
the files of The American Teacher as indicative of the uni- 
versality of its sentiments and the adequacy and sanity of 
its educational philosophy: 

AMERICA FIRST! 

In Justice to all, in protecting the weak from abuses — 

America First ! 
In Freedom for all, in destroying privilege and persecution — 

America First ! 
In Opportunity for all, in training for service and devotion — 

America First ! 
In Brotherhood for all, in aspiring toward generous co-operation — 

America First ! 
In Democracy for all, in leading the world forward — 

America First ! 

(Front Page American Teacher, J\Iay, 1916. 

ONE YEAR 

A year of war has brought with it many changes in the temper of 
our people. Not all of the changes are altogether desirable; nor are 
they all deplorable. They are the changes that will make for a closer 
unity of national spirit, for a better understanding between sections and 
classes, for a clearer visualization of ideals. There is evident, despite 
frequent outbursts of violence and low emotionalism, a mellowing of 
the militarist thru contact with the physical and spiritual sufferings en- 
tailed by the war. There is evident also a gradual acceptance of the 
necessity for the war on the part of many whose sentiments revolted 
against the elemental resort to phj-sical force for the adjustment of 
twentieth century disputes. Many of those who appeared at first hostile 

34 



to the national purpose we have come to recognize as being opposed 
merely to the means adopted ; and of these many are becoming not only 
reconciled to the means, but active, enthusiastic supporters of the admin- 
istration's v\'ar measures. In view of these changes we may be encouraged 
to hope for a progressive dominance of reason in human relations; and 
we may be rebuked for our intolerance and our impatience when con- 
fronted with antagonistic opinions and viewpoints. 

We have the utmost confidence in the statesmanship and in the sin- 
cerity of our, of the world's great schoolmaster, Woodrow Wilson. We 
are with him and with the sound, if not always articulate, sentiment of 
the great masses of our people, in fighting for universal peace and justice. 
We realize that these blessings are attainable only when nations like 
individuals, are honest in their dealings with one another, only when 
nations, like individuals, seek to live in a way that does not cause harm 
to o thers, when each seeks to gain no advantage at the expense of others. 
We have learned that within the nation we cannot look for peace and 
justice so long as aggression and exploitation are accepted as the normal 
and legitimate prerogatives of the powerful and the unscrupulous. And 
we are learning that democracy means more than being let alone to 
pursue our private gains, to mind our own business. We are learning 
that it means a new way of life, a way for all people and all nations 
to thrive together in mutual helpfulness and considerateness in honor 
and justice. 

We must fight the war through because at its conclusion will be 
determined whether the ideals of human brotherhood and democracy and 
justice for all will prevail, or the ancient rule of autocratic brutality and 
domination. We wish the triumph of the new way of life." 

(From The American Teacher, April, 1918) 

TO DEKAISERIZE EDUCATION 

Political democracy is making tremendous strides abroad. Even in 
industry, where the spirit of kaiserism and Divine-Right-Baer, is so 
strongly intrenched, the workers are asserting themselves to an unusual 
extent, industrial democracy being their goal. This democratic trend 
is manifesting itself everywhere except where it should manifest itself 
most — that is, in our educational system. Democracy cannot flourish in 
the schools if the teacher "is too often the serf at the bottom of the 
feudal system without power of initiation, the victim of threats that are 
often ignorant and sometimes brutal. Truly there will remain a fight 
against kaiserism when its manifestations in Europe are properly crushed." 

The death struggle between kaiserism and democracy is on. The 
educational exponents of kaiserism are trying to crush the champions 
of democracy thru the inauguration of a reign of terror under the guise 
of "inquisitions," dismissal for "conduct unbecoming a teacher" and by 
transfers "for the good of the service." These punishments are not 
meted out upon evidence that would hold in any court of law, but upon 
the mere assertions or inferences of official superiors who are interested 
in crushing their outspoken opponents because they fear the undermining 
of their power and "leadership." Kaiserism answers its heroic critics 

36 



liy piling charge upon charge, suspension upon suspension, dismissal upon 
dismissal. Subserviency and sycophancy are becoming more and more 
prevalent. The tenure law is dead. Kaiserism, thru autocratic interpre- 
tation, has given it its death blov^. Democracy is tottering. Will it fall? 

The Teachers' Union is now fighting the battle of democracy against 
the educational kaisers. Its members want to respect their superiors 
not because they are ordered to, but because those superiors have earned 
and deserved respect. To get the respect of their subordinates their 
acts must stand the light of day. The lips of every teacher in the sys- 
ten must be free to utter what his conscience dictates. Criticism must 
be encouraged and rewarded. Democracy is synonymous with truth and 
truth stands naked but unashamed ! Truth and democracy flourish with 
publicity but autocracy and kaiserism with duplicity. School officials 
who cannot stand criticism of their acts are dangerous kaisers who fear 
democracy and hate the truth. Democracy means freedom of thought, 
freedom of action. The attack upon teachers for holding views is an 
an attack upon criticism, upon democracy by autocracy, and can have but 
one result if successful — intellectual subserviency! The Union is im- 
alterably opposed to the autocratic ideal in education, and in industry 
as well as in government. 

The Union proposes to prevent the crowning of autocracy by bring- 
ing about the triumph of democracy. Democracy can triumph thru the 
efforts of the teachers themselves. He who cannot rule himself is 
unfit to rule or to train others. The teacher must assert himself; he 
must aid in establishing educational democracy. He should oppose 
every attack upon freedom of expression. He must insist upon intelli- 
gent co-operation of teachers in school administration. Teachers, your 
efforts may prove abortive but failure is the key to success as the ills 
of democratic assertion will be cured by still stronger assertion. Today 
we are living thru an educational nightmare, the product of autocracy. 
Courageous and respectful self-assertion will usher in the new era of 
educational democracy and freedom. Join the ermy of educational de- 
mocracy and help dethrone educational autocracy. 

PRUSSIA 

From you too we have learned. 
But your Militarism is obnoxious to us — 
we'll none of it, nor of any other brand. 

We must have Freedom of Thought — 

and mean to have it. 
We must have Freedom of Speech — 

and will insist upon it. 

We cannot thrive on Compulsion — 

we will resist it. 
We cannot tolerate Autocracy — 

and we will overthrow it. 

We love Liberty — and mean to fight for it 
: (Front Page American Teacher, May, 1917.) 

36 



RUSSIA 

We salute you in the name of the New Day 

You have arisen in your might 

You have overthrown your autocrats 

You have struck off your chains 

You have moved near to liberty and civilization 

You have taken a long step toward democracy 

You have taught us a lesson 

(Front Page American Teacher, April, 1917.) 

NOW 

Now we shall convert our Natural Resources into Foundations for the 
General Welfare, 

Not sources of private advantage. 
Now we shall make the Public Needs the Occasion for Public Service, 

Not sources of private advantage. 
Now we shall make Scientific Discoveries the INIeans of Life More 
Abundant, 

Not sources of private advantage. 
Now we shall make the Learning of the Ages the Cherished Posses- 
sion of all. 

Not sources of private advantage. 
Now we shall make the World into an unfenced Garden for Men, 
Women and Children, 

Not a Jungle surrounded by Waste. 
(Front Page American Teacher, Ja., 1917.) 

NATIONAL HONOR 

Let us then so conduct our affairs that those of tomorrow may say : 
We have used our powers to protect rights and liberties; we have used 

our forces to promote justice among men. 
We have shielded the helpless from aggression ; we have dealt fairly 

with all 
We have insured opportunity to every child, and have guarded from 

hunger and disease 
We have grown and prospered without infringing on our neighbors; 

we have conquered ignorance and greed 
We have omitted no word or deed demanded by the welfare of our 

fellow men; we have shared our abundance for the enrichment of life 
(Front Page American Teacher, Mar., 1917) 
Item 3 (c) "A number of teachers from this group, 
among them Gabriel R. Mason, the President of the American 
Teacher Company, give courses of instruction in the Rand 
School of Socialism, 7 East 15th Street, New York City" 
(p. 4). 

37 



In relation to the third assertion con- 
Our Answer 3 (c) : cerning the Rand School), it need only 

be stated that as every honest-minded 
person knows, the Rand School was created for the purpose 
of encouraging the study of Social Science. It is not called 
the Rand School of Socialism. The Teachers' Union is glad 
to call the attention of the Schoolmasters to the fact that 
some of its most distinguished lecturers have been chosen 
from among non-Socialists. Some of the courses, w^e learn, 
have included the study of anthropology, world literature, 
history, English, public speaking, dramatics, music, art, 
physical science, philosophy, etc. These courses have been 
given to mixed classes consisting of Socialists and non-So- 
cialists. The subject matter of the majority of these 
courses can in no way be construed to be Socialistic. The 
lecturers have included such distinguished non-Socialists 
as Prof. Giddings, Prof. Montague, Prof. Goldenweiser, 
Mary Shaw, Frederick C. Howe, Padraic Colum, Prof. Over- 
street and a host of others well known to those who are 
acquainted with the Rand School of Social Science. 

We cannot let the opportunity pass, but we must call 
the Schoolmasters to their class in modern economics and 
sociology. As an introductory chapter let them study a 
letter written by President Wilson, March 20, 1918, to the 
Conference of New Jersey Democrats. 

"A time of grave crisis has come in the hfe of the Democratic 
Party in New Jersey. . . . Every sign of these terrible days of war 
and revohitionary change, when economic and social forces are 
being released upon the world whose efifect no political seer dare 
venture to conjecture, bids us search our hearts through and 
through and make them ready for the birth of a new day — a day, 
we hope and believe, of greater opportunity and greater prosperity 
for the average mass of struggling men and women, and of greater 
safety and opportunity for children. . . . 

"The men in the trenches, who have been freed from the 
economic serfdom to which some of them had been accustomed, 
will, it is likely, return to their homes with a new view and a new 
impatience of all mere political phrases, and will demand real think- 
ing and sincere action." 

Sociologically speaking, the age in which we live is 
deeply characterized by a tendency towards socialization. 
To forward-looking persons, the liberals and the radicals, 
this tendency is deemed to be historically inevitable, social 
evolution in a truly progressive direction. To the back- 

38 



ward-looking folk, the conservatives and the reactionaries, 
the impetus to socialization is viewed with trepidation as 
a tendency that will make for the unsettling of age-old 
values and sanctions. The conflict between these two types 
is the most significant, dramatic situation of our time. It 
causes no surprise in the radical mind to discover that the 
reactionaries' unanalyzed opposition to this universal ten- 
dency-toward-socialization is embodied in the denunciatory 
phrase, "It is socialistic". Why it should be assumed that 
a socialistic reform is by its very nature something to be 
abhorred has never been intelligently explained. Surely 
it is common knowledge that many of the accepted 
changes in our political and industrial world, now consid- 
ered part and parcel of the management of a complex state, 
were only a decade ago irrationally opposed and futilely de- 
nounced as "socialistic". As if a mere epithet were an argu- 
ment! The reactionary intelligence, in its eff'ort to sim- 
plify its case against social progress, contents itself with 
labeling as "socialistic" (and therefore undesirable!) every 
fundamental modification in the status quo. However, ob- 
structionists are playing a losing game. They are in the 
plight of the touchingly naive character in Bernard Shaw's 
"Fanny's First Play", who ultimately and to his overwhelm- 
ing chagrin confesses "the world has passed me by". The 
world cannot stop progressing, no, not even to please the 
static intelligence of the Schoolmasters' Association. How 
can teachers consider themselves competent to prepare the 
youth of our great land for the duties of enlightened citi- 
zenship if they themselves shut out the most inspiring and 
far-reaching propositions and programs invented by liberal- 
minded thinkers? Whatever happens to be one's private 
intellectual slant, it becomes a moral duty, an intellectual 
.responsibility, to be deeply acquainted with every vital move- 
ment making for the socialization and emancipation of the 
workers. The Nonpartisan League, the I. W. W. propa- 
ganda, the newly organized labor movement in Canada, the 
President's letter of appreciation and sympathy to the Sov 
lets, the meaning and direction of the Russian Revolution — 
these are all important and interesting subjects of analysis 
for the enlightened American citizen. The teacher who 
taboos as of no importance these various powerful move- 
ments for social uplift, stamps himself as bourbon and 

39 



reactionary, unworthy of the inspiring tradition of free 
men. We trust that the Schoolmasters' Association and the 
American Defense Society are not interlocked in a con- 
spiracy to perpetuate a reign of intellectual darkness in our 
school system. Their suggestions and criticisms reveal them 
as coming perilously close to approving mediaevalism in 
education. 

Recently, Senator Sherman of Illinois, in a fit of con- 
servative indignation, cried out against the Administration 
that it was "socialistic." He pointed out thinking that he 
was contributing to intelligence when he was only contrib- 
uting to rhetoric) that President Wilson's chief assistants, 
Mr. Baker, Mr. Creel, Mr. Wilson, Mr. Burleson, are all 
Socialists. Why doesn't it occur to these futile critics to 
spend some of their twitching energies in a careful study 
of the sociological tendencies of our age ? Perhaps they will 
discover that the public school is itself an interesting illus- 
tration of "pure socialism", — as Dr. Wm. H. Maxwell once 
called it. Perhaps they will discover that there are certain 
profound socio-political reasons that make inevitably for 
that reconstruction of society which they are pleased to 
call "socialistic." We recommend to the Schoolmasters' As- 
sociation the thoughtful perusal of the great works of Nor- 
man Angell, Noel Brailsford, John Hobson, Sidney Webb, 
Thorstein Veblen, Bertrand Russell and John Dewey. 

The Schoolmasters have given a proof of their hatred 
of internationalism in an effort to connect some ill-defined 
persons in the Teachers' Union with that kind of doctrine. 
It will be sufficient to quote from the ally of the Schoolmas- 
ters' Association, Dr. William T. Hornaday, of the American 
Defense Society, who has written a remarkable pamphlet 
called "A Searchlight on Germany". As a suggestion of 
Dr. Hornaday's "nationalism" we quote: 

"The only logical conclusion of Germany's career of crime and 
dirty fighting is, a^ the close of the war, the contempt, the aversion 
and the loathing of the civilized world, and a universal policy of 
non-intercourse. Let Germany go and live with Austria, and the 
loathsome Turk, in a hell of their own. Can any American not 
of German birth ever again desire to visit and travel in the land of 
the criminal Kaiser who started the war, the land of the murderers, 
ravishers and traitors whom the war brought to the surface? We 
cannot conceive it possible. 

"And after the war is over, the less we hear in America of the 
German language and of German literature, music, art and science, 

40 



the better for all concerned. The German idols one and all lie 
in the mud, in fragments, — cast down and smashed by the mad-dogs 
of Germany, and no one else! Americans of German descent 
may build monuments to their memory but never again can they be 
set up for Americans to worship." 

From a pamphlet called "American and Allied Ideals", 
written by Prof. Stuart P. Sherman, University of Illinois, 
and published by The Committee on Public Information, we 
quote : 

"The Allies are not fighting for French or English or Ameri- 
can law, justice, truth, and honor, but for international law, inter- 
national truth, international justice, international honor. 

"The new national pride and patriotism developed by this con- 
flict finds its basis in the service which each nation renders to the 
cause above all nations, the cause of civilized society, the cause of 
civilized man. The new type of patriot no longer cries, 'my country 
against the world,' but 'my country for the world.' 

"Humanity is not safe while any nation professes inhumanity. 
We are not fighting to put the Germans out but to get them in. 

"Where shall we look for the ideals of the Allies? Primarily, 
perhaps, in the utterances of the Allied statesmen at the present 
time and in the vast literature of the conflict. Take, if you like, 
Siam's statement of its reasons for entering the war, to 'uphold the 
sanctity of international rights against nations showing a contempt 
of humanity.' Or take Mr. Wilson's statement that our motive is 
not 'revenge or the victorious assertion of the physical might of 
the nation, but only the vindicatiton of right, of human right, of 
which we are only a single champion' ; or his other statement that 
we fight 'for a universal dominion of right by such a concert of 
free peoples as shall bring peace and safety to all nations and make 
the world itself at last free.' " 

PART II. - 

INTRODUCTION. 

The Schoolmasters have attacked with particular bit- 
rerness the professional careers of four members of the 
Teachers' Union, Mr. Henry R. Linville, the President of 
the Teachers' Union, and the three teachers who were dis- 
missed from the educational system in December, 1917, for 
alleged "conduct unbecoming a teacher". The object of 
these personal attacks is clearly to discredit the individuals 
in the eyes of the teaching staff, and ultimately to bring 
about the downfall of the movement for which thase men, 
with others, have stood. 

41 



As we proceed to the consideration of the detailed 
statements of the committee of the Schoolmasters, concern- 
ing the four teachers, we shall ask our readers to take note 
of the inaccurate and misleading charges uttered and of the 
rash dishonesty of its methods. In many instances also 
we shall show that if the Schoolmasters really wanted to 
try the case frankly with the public as observers, all in 
what they assume to be the interests of the public, they 
might have proved their sincerity and might have learned 
more about the facts by asking us. Since they have not done 
so, we shall not have mercy. 

Thruout the analysis of their charges and our replies 
to them we respectfully urge upon our readers that they 
maintain a judicial attitude toward what we believe is a 
clear demonstration of what Professor John Dewey called 
in the New Republic of December 29, 1917, "two opposed 
systems of educational philosophy". If the characterization 
meets with the approval of the readers, we urge further 
that the apparent point of view of our adversaries be con- 
sidered in relation to its bearing on the work of the schools 
and on the purpose of the schools. The decision of this 
matter transcends the consequences of an academic discus- 
sion ; it will ultimately mean the crippling or the develop- 
ment of the school as a social institution. 

THE CASE OF HENRY R. LINVILLE 

Item 1. "The committee finds that Mr. Linville's first 
public attack upon what he designates as "official oppression" 
was made about tv/elve years ago, when he filed a list of 
charges against his principal, Dr. John T. Buchanan, a man 
who was idolized by every boy in DeWitt Clinton High School 
who really knew him. The authorities, after giving Mr. Lin- 
ville full opportunity to prove his charges, did not sustain a 
single charge. Soon after, he was transferred to the Jamaica 
High School: but this transfer was not a case of "official op- 
pression", for, under the by-laws at that time, such transfer 
was impossible without his consent." 

The case referred to in the charge was men- 
Our Answer: tioned without the names of the persons 
concerned, or the school at which the in- 
cidents took place, at the meeting of the Teachers' Union 

42 



held on December 15, 1917. For reasons of consideration 
for the names of the dead we are reluctant to go into the 
detailed history of the case. However, the committee falsely 
interprets the purpose of the living, and must be held re- 
sponsible for the consequences. 

Our interest in the case is not a personal one. Nor 
shall we enter upon a description of some of its features for 
any other reason than that of calling public attention to 
jyractices still in vogue in educational administration which 
we believe to be fraught with grave danger to the schools as 
agencies in a democracy. The following account is taken 
from documents, such as copies of letters, originals of let- 
ters, and copies of testimony given at an official hearing, 
that are still in the possession of Mr. Henry R. Linville. 

In December, 1904, Dr. Frederick Monteser, Teacher- 
in-charge of the annex of DeWitt Clinton High School at 240 
West 109th St., New York, was subjected to a gross per- 
sonal insult by the Principal of the DeWitt Clinton High 
School, on the occasion of a conference of the teachers-in- 
charge of all the annexes of the school. Word of the per- 
petration of the insult coming to Mr. Linville the next day, 
he wrote a note to Dr. Monteser expressing sympathy and 
offering support partly on the ground of friendship, but 
chiefly for the reason that the outbursts and the insulting 
conduct of the Principal toward teachers had been so fre- 
quent as to constitute an unbearable condition of affairs. 
It was agreed between Mr. Monteser and Mr. Linville that 
they should together call on Mr. Henry N. Tifft, then Presi- 
dent of the Board of Education, and relate to him the facts 
coi!cerning the conduct of the school. 

After hearing the stories of the two teachers, Mr. Tifft, 
requested Mr. Linville to prepare a statement of the points 
that had been made, and direct it to Mr. Frank L. Babbott, 
then Chairman of the High School Committee of the Board 
of Education, saying also to Mr. Babbott that the statement 
was being made at the request of the President of the Board. 
The conference with Mr. Tifft took place on Saturday, De- 
cember 24, 1904. The statement to Mr. Babbott was pre- 
pared and forwarded to him on Monday, December 26, 1904. 

Within about three weeks word came to the two 
teachers that they were to be transferred to "The Black- 
hole of Calcutta", a euphemistic title at "Fifty-ninth Street" 

43 



for the Girls Technical High School, later to be known as 
the Washington Irving High School. The teachers imme- 
diately went to the Board of Education building, and suc- 
ceeded in conferring with the President of the Board. They 
found him non-committal, however, and apparently unwill- 
ing to be of assistance. Thereupon, Mr. Linville called on 
the City Superintendent in his ofRce, and there learned that 
the City Superintendent had ordered the transfer on the 
basis of a verbal report of the statement written to Mr. Bab- 
bott. This interview took place on Saturday, January 21, 
1905. On the following day an account of the conversation 
was prepared by Mr. Linville from memory. An illuminat- 
ing portion of this conference reads thus : 

*'W. H. M. (Dr. Maxwell) It makes no difference 
whether the statements (in your letter) are true or not. 
I do not believe they are true. Besides you did a very un- 
professional thing in not coming to your superior officers, 
Mr. Stevens or myself. 

H. R. L. (Mr. Linville) Do you think that there are no 
conditions which might justify a teacher in complaining of 
his superior? 

W. H. M. Absolutely none." 

It being impossible to make headway in this quarter, 
Dr. Monteser and Mr. Linville the next week started on a 
tour of interviewing members of the Board of Education. 
But everywhere they met with discouragement. No one 
cared to discuss with them the justice of the arbitrary act 
of transfer, or to consider the situation in the DeWitt Clin- 
ton High School, some of the Board members saying that the 
Principal of the school was a friend of theirs, and tliey 
would not listen to the statements, others saying that they 
knew the statements were true, but as one added, "What is 
the use of proving what everybody knows about the man?*' 
This statement was made by Mr. Abraham Stern, then the 
leader of the Board, 

This canvass also appeared hopeless until one of the 
teachers thought of a Wall Street lawyer friend who knew a 
former president of the Board of Education, also a lawj'-er 
of considerable prominence. A brief conversation with the 
Wall Street lawyer led to his telephyning the former presi- 
dent, who gladly agreed to use his friendly offices and his 
i;nfluence, altho no longer a member of the Board of Educa- 

44 



tion. As the immediate result of this unofficial influence 
the order for the transfer of the two teachers was rescinded. 
However, Mr. Linville was called to the office of Mr. 
Edward L. Stevens, Associate Superintendent in Charge of 
High Schools, and informed that he would be required to 
present evidence of the truth of his charges contained in the 
letter to Mr. Babbott, or failing in that he ivould he severely 
punished. Thereupon, Mr. Linville furnished Mr. Stevens 
with the names of about thirty teachers in DeWitt Clinton 
High School who were in positions to know- the important 
facts about the conditions in the school. 

Mr. Stevens accepted the list of names and officially 
summoned the teachers to appear before him on February 
24 and March 1, 1905. The record made at the time reads, 
"The teachers were invited to attend by Supt. E. L. Stevens, 
and upon being asked into the committee room singly were 
instructed by Mr. Stevens as follows: 

"This is not a trial, nor is it even an investigation, being 
entirely ex parte, — but. merely a preliminary inquiry. You 
are called here at the request of Mr. Linville to answer cer- 
tain questions that he wants to ask you in our hearing. 

"It is my duty to inform you that you are under no 
constraint to answer. You may answer or not, as you wish. 
Whatever you may say here will be considered as privi- 
leged, at least for the present; but whatever you do say, 
however, at some future time may be the basis of questions 
before a committee of the Board of Education." 

Mr. Linville made formal objection to this instruction 
to the witnesses on the ground that it was practically an 
invitation to them not to testify. The majority of the 
teachers preferred to accept the intimation of Supt. Stevens. 
They evaded urgent issues. However, several of the wit- 
nesses made their statements frankly and with a consider- 
able degree of fullness. The testimony as classified subse- 
quently showed positive statements referring to the Prin- 
cipal of the School under these headings : 

I Lack of Interest in the Scholarship of the School. 
TI Low Ideals of a Teacher's Position. 

III Vulgarity. 

IV Untruthfulness. 

V The Use of Humiliating Epithets against Teachers. 

VI Loose Criticism. 

45 



VII The Manifestation of Race Prejudice. 

VIII Failure to Support Teachers in Discipline. 

IX . Unfavorable Influence on the Boys. 

X Acts technically contrary to By-laws, or to statu- 
tory law. 

XI Advice given to Teachers to do Dishonest Acts. 

XII Professional Dishonesty. 

No. X was supported by the testimony of a District 
Superintendent still in the service, who testfiied that he had 
preferred charges against the principal, and that the prin- 
cipal had never been brought to trial. 

No. X was also supported by evidence showing that 
the Principal had been party to a criminal conspiracy by 
M'hich a new teacher, a personal friend of the Principal, in 
the first month of the teacher's appointment to DeWitt Clin- 
ton High School, had taught in a neighboring endowed 
school, and that while thus teaching had come to the DeWitt 
Clinton High School each morning, entered the time of his 
arrival on the "time-book", and upon leaving the endowed 
school after teaching there all day had returned in the 
afternoon to DeWitt Clinton to enter the time of departure 
from the school. Thus the new teacher was enabled to re- 
ceive two salaries for the same month, one from the en- 
dowed school and one from the City of New York. It ap- 
pears that after the exposure of the conspiracy the money 
for this month's work was returned to the endowed school, 
but the City of New York never received hack the money, 
so far as the payroll in the office of the City Controller in- 
dicated at the time. 

No. XII was supported by proof that the Principal had 
claimed falsely for years to be the holder of the degrees 
"A.B." and "A.M." from a small college in the middle West. 
Telegrams and letters from the President of the college in 
question were submitted at the "inquiry" which stated that 
John T. Buchanan had been a student at the college in the 
early "seventies", but had never received any degree what- 
ever. Associate Superintendent Stevens wrote to the Presi- 
dent of the college on his own account, and received verify- 
ing statements. The original letters and telegrams sent by 
the President to Mr. Linville concerning this matter are 
still available for examination, if the committee of the 

46 



Schoolmasters still persists in giving the false impression 
that none of the charges in that case was proven. 

The school authorities now had more evidence than 
they knew what to do with. Consequently, one might say, 
they did nothing. In this way the statement of the School- 
masters that the authorities "did not sustain a single 
charge" becomes technically true. They did not sustain a 
single charge, because in general the New York educational 
system has been intent upon maintaining its autocracy in- 
tact, and upon punishing those who attempt to break it 
down. 

In this particular instance, however, the authorities 
seemed to be satisfied with the condition of stalemate, for 
neither Principal nor the two complaining teachers were 
disturbed. All three continued to maintain official relations 
in the same school building until the month of May, 1907. 
Then in a morning assembly of that month the Principal 
told the boys he had just received from an angry parent a 
letter complaining that his boy had failed in mathematics 
at the examination of the previous term, and that some 
teacher of that subject had intimated to the boy to employ 
him as his tutor. The Principal became very sarcastic, and 
said of course he could understand why teachers should 
cause boys to fail and thereby create chances for making 
some extra money. There was considerable resentment at 
this among the teachers, and a few made protests to the 
Principal orally or in writing against his sweeping im- 
putations. Among those who wrote notes was Mr. Linville, 
and his protest was made the basis of immediate charges 
by the Principal. The charges were based in part upon the 
fact that Mr. Linville had prepared and circulated among 
the teachers of the school a paper which might be called an 
appeal to the self-respect of teacher's. It reads as follows: 

"To the Teachers of the DeWitt CHnton High School: — 

"I am addressing this circular letter to you because I believe 
there is pretty general conviction in the school that there are certain 
definite limits beyond which a principal may not go in his treat- 
ment of teachers. 

"Those of you who heard the Principal's remarks in assembly 
yesterday morning probably understand that some one or more of 
our number had been engaged in recommending to parents that 
their sons should employ tutors. The inference which the Princi- 
pal in his remarks drew was that these teachers were trying to 
use their positions and opportunity for illegitimate private gain. 

47 



I believe you will agree with me when I say that the effect of the 
Principal's remarks was that of an indiscriminate attack upon the 
honor and conscientious attention to duty of everyone of us. 
Doubtless the great majority of the pupils know nothing of the cir- 
cumstances, but we can be certain that nearly everyone of us has 
been or will be subjected to discussion by the pupils at home as 
well as in the school, and that some will be condemned unjustly 
by them. 

"It is of no avail for the Principal to say, as he has said to me 
since the event, that of course he did not mean to include those 
persons who are not guilty. How do the pupils know who are 
'guilty,' and who are not? The incontestable fact is that the thing 
has been said, and childish minds will associate the charges in their 
own way with whomever they please. 

"Aside from the serious nature of this occurrence, I believe 
that the practice of rebuking teachers in the presence of pupils, 
no matter how slight the charge, is one that superintendents and 
authorities in school management would unite in condemning in 
unmeasured terms. There can be no discipline if teachers are hu- 
miliated in the hearing of pupils. Moreover, I believe the time has 
come for teachers to maintain as a principle that superior officials 
are under the same obligation to treat subordinates with respect, 
as subordinates are to treat them with respect. And further, that 
in all the relations of principal and teacher there shall be neither 
officious pretense of superior right, nor subservient yielding to im- 
position. 

"If our school proves itself a power for good citizenship, as 
it has not yet done, we have got to get together and develop some 
common basis for mutual confidence. Personal imposition, evasion 
and dishonesty must stop. I say this with the full conviction that 
the present awful waste of opportunity in the school is a matter of 
far more serious concern, than is the personal welfare of any in- 
dividual connected with it. 
May 17, 1907. (Signed) HENRY R. LINVILLE." 

The hearing on these charges was held in May, 1907, 
before a joint committee of the Board of Superintendents 
and a sub-committee of the High School Committee of the 
Board of Education. The Chairman of the sub-committee 
made the astonishing statement to the defendant that what- 
ever the Principal had said to the boys it was the duty of 
teachers to accept without question. No formal charges 
were ever served, and no judgment was ever rendered, so 
far as the accused was informed. Mr. Linville asked for a 
transcript of the testimony. This was promised, but was 
never furnished. 

In October, 1907, Mr. Linvillle was surprised to note 
that his salary increase for the fifth year of service as first 

48 



assistant did not appear in the check. Upon inquiring at 
the Board of Education building, he learned from Asso- 
ciate Superintendent Stevens that the trouble of May was 
probably responsible for the holding up of the increase. 
Mr. Stevens advised "sitting tight", and it would all come 
out right. But Mr. Linville declined to sit tight. He in- 
terviewed other members of the Board of Superintendents, 
and from one learned that the Board had taken no action 
on approving or disapproving the fourth year of service, 
which they were required to do by law. 

As late as December, 1907, no action had been taken 
on approving or disapproving the service, and the salary 
remained the same as in the preceding year. In that month 
during an interview Mr. Linville had with the Chairman of 
the High School Committee of the Board of Education, it 
was tentatively suggested by the Chairman that the matter 
might be adjusted by a transfer outside the Borough. This 
was agreed to, and Mr. Linville's services were immediately 
approved by the Board of Superintendents as "fit and meri- 
. torious for the completion of the fourth year of service as 
first assistant". The increase was allowed, and on Feb- 
ruary 1, 1908, Mr. Linville began service in the Jamaica 
High School. 

Mr. Linville regrets that this history cannot be told 
without referring in unfavorable light to those who have 
passed beyond. Very few of the officials who were re- 
sponsible for the slack management of this case, not to say 
the indifference to situations that involved points of an un- 
professional or criminal nature, are now alive and in serv- 
ice. But the ideals which the officials of a half -generation 
ago apparently held to are conceived to be proper bj^ many 
in power today. What these ideals are will appear more 
definitely in the discussion of the cases of the three teachers 
who were dismissed from DeWitt Clinton High School in 
December, 1907, for alleged "conduct unbecoming a 
teacher". 

The Teachers' Union believes that the Schoolmasters' 
Association contains in its membership many individuals 
who will defend at all times the practises of the educational 
autocracy which the Union is doing its best to transform 
into a democracy. In fact, the Schoolmasters have gone 
on record as approving the report of their committee on 

49 



"unpatriotic teaching". If this committee itself has been 
misled by unscrupulous members, the Union trusts that 
some honorable and enlightened action will follow. 

This section of the reply of the Teachers' Union may 
be closed with the statement that Mr. A. I. Dotey, a mem- 
ber of the Schoolmasters' committee, was a teacher in De 
Witt Clinton High School at the time the charges were 
brought against the Principal. In fact, the testimony 
shows that Mr. Dotey testified to hearing the Principal use 
abusive language in addressing a teacher in the presence of 
other teachers. Mr. Dotey was in the position to know the 
character of the Principal, and to know the nature of the 
offenses with which the Principal was charged. The 
Union may fairly suppose that Mr. Dotey prepared that 
portion of the report which constituted the challenge that 
has brought out the Union's reply. And the Union may 
also fairly suppose that Mr. Dotey wilfully misstated the 
case, or that he does not think it matters what a principal 
does so long as he does not "hold any animosity" toward a 
teacher whom he has insulted, (a proper inference from his 
testimony given at the inquiry) , or that he is responsible 
for both misstating the case and for holding a low profes- 
sional ideal of self-respect. We submit that the employ- 
ment of teachers of this kind for purposes of character- 
building and for the development of ideals of citizenship is 
dangerous to the social well-being. The support given to 
views of this nature by an entire organization constitutes 
a social menace of the greatest magnitude. 

. . THE CASE OF SAMUEL D. SCHMALHAUSEN. 

Specification 1. Of the Charges Preferred by Super- 
intendent Tildsley: 

"That the said Samuel D. Schmalhausen considers it not 
to be his duty to develop in the students under his control 
instinctive respect for the President of the United States, as 
such. Governor of the State of New York, as such, and other 
Federal, State and Municipal officers, as such." 

The reader will observe that Mr. Schmalhausen is not 
charged with having failed to inculcate respect; he is 
charged with consiclering it not to be his duty to develop in 
his students instinctive respect. The problem therefore 

50 



arises whether a teacher who has rendered efficient and loyal 
service for a period of eight years is to be dismissed from 
the school system because his conception of the kind and 
quality of respect to be developed in his students differs 
from that of his Associate Superintendent. As a matter of 
fact, — simple psychologic fact — it is a contradiction in 
terms to speak of "teaching INSTINCTIVE respect" or in- 
stinctive anything else. 

As Prof. Dewey says in 'The Dial" (April 11, 1918), 
in relation to the general subject of Education and Social 
Direction : 

"Only 'Bureaucratic surveillance and unremitted interference 
in the private life' of subjects can, in the face of the disintegrating 
tendencies of contemporary industry and trade, develop that 'pas- 
sionate aspiration for subservience'- which is a marked feature of the 
Prussian diathesis. If we look these facts in the face, we shall 
quickly see the romanticism of any proposal to secure the German 
type of disciplined efficiency and of patient and persistent 'industry' 
by borrowing a few features of the personal relation of teacher 
and pupil and installing them in the school. Only an occasional 
pedagogical Dogberry can rise to the level of a New York School 
Administrator who would secure permanent good, loyal citizenship 
'teaching (sic) instinctive obedience' in the schools. 

"Taken in this crude form, the desire to Prussianize the dis- 
ciplinary methods of American schools is too incoherent and spas- 
modic to constitute a serious danger. A serious danger there is, 
however, and it lies in the confused thinking which such efforts 
stimulate and strengthen. The danger lies not in any likelihood of 
success. Save here and there and for a brief period, the attempts 
run hopelessly counter to the trend of countless social forces. The 
danger is that the vague desire and confused thought embodied in 
them will cover up the real problems involved in securing an effec- 
tively loyal democratic citizenship; and distract attention from the 
constructive measures required to develop the kind of social unity 
and social control required in a democracy." 

Upon reflection. Dr. Tildsley must surely have realized 
how untenable his proposition is. In fact, Prof. Giddings, 
a member of the Board of Education, (himself a distin- 
guished social psychologist) was at some pains to make 
clear to Dr. Tildsley how unphilosophical his position as to 
the teaching of instinctive respect was. At the trial, one 
of the counsel for the prosecution having put the question 
to Mr. Schmalhausen in the phraseology of Dr. Tildsley, 
upon being reminded of the impossibility of his proposition, 
conceded the point and withdrew the word "instinctive". 
The really importanf point to bear in mind is that Mr. 

51 



Schmalhausen was never charged with having failed to de- 
velop in the students under his control a proper respect for 
the President of the United States, et al. When the de- 
fendant emphasized his belief in the unifying value of re- 
flective respect, he pointed out the rational and utterly dem- 
ocratic content of that truly appropriate respect which 
springs from reflection. In referring to a hum.an action as 
being "instinctive", we have in mind a reaction so deeply 
rooted in biologic necessity as to be a universal inheritance 
of the species ; a purely automatic or reflex action, an al- 
most instantaneous response to a familiar stimulus. Evo- 
lution has imbedded in the nervous system those strangely 
immediate reactions to environmental stimuli which we call 
instincts. To speak of teaching instinctive anything is to 
talk foolishness. Of course, we may guide and cultivate in- 
stinct; we may reflect upon it; we may rationalize its by- 
products; but no one can speak with scientific legitimacy 
of teaching what is, by its very nature, definition and func- 
tion, presumed and known to be an inborn predisposition. 
At any rate, we here enter upon a metaphysical problem. 
The metaphysical nature of Specification I is made the more 
apparent (and ludicrous) by the repeated insertion of the 
quintessentially metaphysical phrase "as such". Only Im- 
manuel Kant is competent to pass upon the baffling mean- 
ing of "as such" ! 
Specification 2 : 

"That in making written criticisms of a certain letter, 
dated Oct. 22, 1917, addressed to the President of the 
United States, written by Hyman Herman, a pupil under 
his instruction, the said Samuel D. Schmalhausen failed 
to make such criticisms of the contents of said letter as 
would lead the pupil to petceive the gross disloyalty in- 
volved in his point of view as expressed in the said letter." 
This "charge" as it stands is just plainly untrue. All 
the facts surrounding this troublesome letter may well be 
restated, for they bear momentously upon the whole case 
against the defendant. The letter was not ioritte7i in class. 
It was written at home, either by Herman himself or by 
someone closely related to Herman. The letter was 7iot 
read in class. It was first shown to Mr. Schmalhausen tiuo 
tveeks after it had been collected •v\:ith all the other papers 
by the head of the English Department. That was the first 

52 



time that Mr. Schmalhausen was permitted to know that 
one of his pupils had written this scurrilous letter. Out of 
a total of s-eventy-six letters handed in to the head of de- 
partment by the two seventh-term classes who had been 
asked to write an open letter to the President, 07ily this one 
was considered so reprehensible as to be chosen for the 
basis of a "charge" against the defendant. In a communi- 
cation to the Globe (Nov. 22, 1917), the head of the Eng- 
lish Department admitted that the vast majority of the 
compositions were thoroughly patriotic. In her testimony 
at the trial, she alluded to the luke-warm patriotism of only 
tw^o compositions. It therefore appears that a teacher is 
to be dismissed from the school system because, out of a 
total of seventy-six essays, one composition (written at 
home) proves to be less than one hundred percent patriotic. 
When it is borne in mind that the topic in question was ad- 
mittedly the first political assignment given during that 
term ; when it is borne in mind that the only utterly repre- 
hensible essay had been written at home by a pupil who 
had not been a member for more than four weeks in Mr. 
Schmalhausen's class ; when it is further remembered that 
on the day of trial, the offending pupil, upon examination 
and cross-examination, admitted that the ideas contained 
in that offensive letter had not been in any remotest way 
inspired by the teacher, that, in fact, he would have written 
exactly that sort of letter at that particular time no matter 
in whose class he was being taught; — it becomes all the 
more astounding and inexplicable how this specification 
could have been included at all. When, finally, the actual 
written criticisms made by the teacher, at Dr. Tildsley's 
request, are carefully reviewed, the stark inaccuracy, not 
to say, premeditated untruthfulness of Specification 2 is laid 
bare. Those written criticisms reveal on the part of the 
teacher so complete, so merciless a disagreement with and 
disapproval of the sentiments expressed in the Herman 
letter, that only a hopelessly prejudiced person could dare 
to assert that the criticisms are only "technical". Do the 
following incisive criticisms strike the reader as being 
purely formal and technical?: 

"Exaggerated, excessive emotionalism. 

"Is there any sanity in this assertion? 

"Do you take these remarks seriously? 

53 



"For a thoughtful student this statement 
sounds irrational. 

"Recall President Wilson's differentiation be- 
tween the German Government and the German 
people. 

"Not accurately presented. 

"Foolish attitude historically. 

"Do you believe in its sincerity? (peace offer 
made by Germany). 

"Sorry to find this unintelligent comment in 
your work. 

"Why did you write thi??" 

***** 

At the "trial" Dr. Tildsley disclaimed that any conten- 
tion was urged that Mr. Schmalhausen was in any way re- 
sponsible for the sentiments contained in that letter (see 
p. 90, Testimony). There was never anything said in the 
classroom which could possibly have given the boy the ideas 
contained in the letter. This fact was testified to by Her- 
man himself (see p. 133-135, Testimony). Direct evidence 
exonerating Mr. Schmalhausen in re the Herman letter : 
(Volume of Testimony, Page 135) (Herman on stand) : 

Q. Did you ever hear Mr. Schmalhausen in class or out of class, 
or in any way utter any sentiment that is responsible for your 
writing that letter? 

A. No, sir. 

Q. Did you ever hear him say anything that was against the Presi- 
dent or against any officer of the government, or against any 
policy of the government? 

A. No, sir; never. 

Q. Or against the attitude of the United States In the war? 

A. I have never heard him discuss that question. 

On the day of the "trial", in answer to Prof. Giddings' 
question as to what the defendant thought of the letter, the 
defendant answered: "I think the worst offensiveness lies 
in the utterly brutal misconception of the President and his 
attitude. It is a brutal misconception of the President as a 
human being and the President as an official, and from that 
flows all the other statements which imply his (Herman's) 
tremendous discourtesy and his disloyalty." (Testimony 
p. 132.) 

It must not be forgotten (that as Dr. Paul himself 
testified) Mr. Schmalhausen was suspended before any op- 

54 



portunity was given him to correct in personal interview 
with the pupil the reprehensible letter submitted by Her- 
man. There is also an important psychological fact to note 
in connection with the whole problem of criticism. As 
Prof. Dewey pointed out, the public at large, unacquainted 
with the rather limited, local and private nature of the class- 
room work, expect the emotional reaction which would be 
more appropriate if a critic were pronouncing his judg- 
ment in the presence of a large audience. No doubt, if 
Herman had read his letter to a crowd, and had his teacher 
failed to communicate to that patriotic audience his utter 
abhorrence of sentiments so brutally unfair, there might 
indeed be some psychologic ground for the inference that 
the teacher himself was but luke-warmly patriotic. But 
when you think the matter over calmly, doesn't it strike 
you that the written criticisms made by the teacher in the 
presence, not of his offending pupil ; in the presence, not 
of his whole class ; but in the presence of two persons both 
occupying official positions and therefore unrelated to the 
class experience as a whole, doesn't it strike the reader that 
the criticisms, if anything, lean to the side of excessive 
and too personal opposition on the part of the teacher? 
Can't you imagine how intensely severe and direct would 
have been the additional criticisms of the teacher, had he, 
in all fairness, been permitted to criticise the boy and his 
composition in the presence of the whole class? No such 
fair opportunity was ever given. And why not? Obviously 
because the gentlemen of the prosecution knew that such a 
fair opportunity would have elicited from Mr. Schmal- 
hausen and the pupils so deep and overwhelming a criti- 
cism of that reprehensible letter as to forestall and render 
impossible the execution of their prejudiced purpose against 
the defendant. If Dr. Paul, the Principal of DeWitt Clin- 
ton High School, had been sincere ; if Dr. Tildsley had been 
honest, would they have kept an unbroken silence in rela- 
tion to Herman's outrageous offense, would they have per- 
mitted both the pupil and the teacher to remain innocent 
of the mischievous contents of that letter until several weeks 
after the day of assignment? Herman wasn't apprised of 
the situation and his part in it until after the suspension 
of his teacher ! Mr. Schmalhausen was not apprised of the 
nature of the Herman letter until it had been in the per- 

65 



sonal possession of Dr. Paul and Dr. Tildsley for fully two 
weeks ! Why were these prosecutors so desperately anxious 
to keep teacher and pupil so separated as to make it ini- 
possible for the teacher to counteract the unpatriotic atti- 
tude of the boy? How account for this sinister conduct on 
the part of Dr. Paul and Dr. Tildsley? 

The Herman Letter was written at the time of year 
(late October, 1917), when the East Side boys,— Clinton 
High is composed of this type, — were being swamped by 
crude reiterations of all kinds of criticism of the Govern- 
ment, especially in relation to the Conscription Act and the 
threatened imposition of a rigorous censorship. To one of 
the teachers whom he interviewed at Clinton High (Mr. 
Jablonower), Dr. Tildsley, in his attempt to fathom the 
sources of Herman's cutting point of view, failing to re- 
ceive any helpful suggestions from the teacher, (who as a 
teacher of mathematics was not altogether prepared for a 
discussion of Herman's composition), finally admitted to 
Mr. Jablonower that most likely the boy's statements were 
merely an echo of yellow journalism and had undoubtedly 
been influenced by some of the cheaper newspapers. 

Since, as no one will deny, every pupil is essentially 
the product of numerous antecedent social and personal 
forces not at all intimately related to the classroom situa- 
tion; since among these various forces the most conspicu- 
ous are the home, the lecture center, the newspaper world, 
the settlement, the "gang", not to mention all his previous 
teachers, especially his teachers of English and Economics 
and History; — according to what peculiar theory of fair 
play or sane analysis shall we be asked to accept it as rea- 
sonable that one teacher, — teacher of English, — who admit- 
tedly had had the given pupil under his instruction for less 
than four weeks, — according to what peculiar theory of fair 
play, we ask again, shall this most recent teacher in only 
one and that a minor branch of knowledge, be held respon- 
sible for the viewpoints of a student who by his own testi- 
mony admitted the overwhelming influence upon his think- 
ing of social forces utterly outside the classroom? Why 
should one teacher be singled out to be the scapegoat and 
have to bear the burden of the inadequacies of years and 
years of complex educational and social influences operat- 
ing half unconsciously upon the youthful mentality ? 

56 



Let's imagine this very plausible situation. Suppose 
Prof. Giddings had assigned to a group of seventy-five of 
his students a theme on the conduct of the war since Amer- 
ica's entrance into the world struggle. Suppose that the 
President of the University had been told by one of his per- 
sonal spies (who in turn was informed by a pupil spy) 
about the nature of the assignment, — which he deemed to 
be umvise. Suppose, again, that all the essays were ordered 
collected and were turned over to Dr. Butler. Suppose Dr. 
Butler in the presence of one of the Head Professors, were 
to blurt out: "Now, Fve got him." Suppose further that 
a representative trustee, summoned for the occasion, and Dr. 
Butler maintain a scrupulous silence for two whole weeks 
in relation to those compositions, when without warning. 
Prof. Giddings is summoned to the private office of Presi- 
dent Butler and in the presence of the representative trustee 
is confronted with one essay (about which he has had not 
an iota of information or knowledge) ; suppose, to make a 
long story short, Prof. Giddings was brought up on the 
charge of "conduct unbecoming a teacher". What would 
any common-sense person say of the nature of the charge? 
Would any one in his senses hold Prof. Giddings responsible 
for what one of his pupils happened to write at home in re- 
lation to President Wilson's conduct of the war ? And if it 
is palpably unjust to hold a Professor of Social Science re- 
sponsible for what one of his students may happen to think 
in relation to a sociological theme, how absurd it is to at- 
tempt to hold a teacher of English responsible for the wild 
assertions of one student, whose views represented the men- 
tal attitude of but one out of seventy-six pupils of the same 
term under the guidance of the particular teacher. The 
flimsiness of the charge becomes so evident as to make it 
impossible for a fair-minded person to believe that the whole 
affair had ever taken place. 

If it be argued that the assignment itself reveals a cul- 
pable attitude on the part of the teacher, the adequate reply 
is (1) that the assignment itself was not made a basis for 
any one of the four specifications charged against Mr. 
Schmalhausen by Superintendent Tildsley and (2) that this 
assignment is but typical of the nature of the socio-political 
assignments given by various teachers including the head 
of the English Department, to the Clinton student for years 

57 



and years together. It is well to remind the reader that 
while the "trial" was pending, the mid-term examinations at 
Clinton High (Nov., 1917), contained among the questions 
in English such debatable subjects as the following: 
"Write brief proper, affirmative or negative : 
We seek no selfish ends in this war. 
Conscription is justifiable in a democracy. 
"Write in outline form the brief proper : 
Strikes. 

Revenue by bond issue or taxation." 
These questions are perfectly typical of the kind of 
sociological theme which the History and English depart- 
ments at Clinton High have emphasized for years. More to 
the point is the fact that these examination questions had 
already been assembled and prepared for printing by the 
head of the English Department before Mr. Schmalhausen's 
assignment became a basis for that inquisition at the school 
which led to the suspension of the three teachers. The in- 
ference is unavoidable that the true motive or cause for 
making the Herman letter the basis of the case against Mr. 
Schmalhausen was the certain knowledge on the part of the 
prosecution that only by so doing could they arouse in the 
uninformed public mind those suspicions and hysterical 
fears upon which a teacher whose record was above sus- 
picion could be brought into disrepute. There is undoubt- 
edly a certain kind of "patriotism" which, far from being 
the last, is in reality the very first, refuge of a certain kind 
of scoundrel. 
Specification 3 : 

"That the said Samuel D. Schmalhausen stated that 
as an instructor of the said pupil, he would cons'der it 
proper to allow the said pupil to write and to read aloud 
to his classmates similar seditious letters addressed to 
the President of the United States." 

This specification is worded rather unscrupulously. 
The tricky and altogether illegal insertion of the word "sedi- 
tious" is reprehensible from every point of view. Not only 
did Pres. Willcox repudiate the implied accusation of dis- 
loyalty so often maliciously repeated against the suspended 
teachers, but Supt. Tildsley himself (even though it was 
at the twelfth hour) disavowed the unfair insinuation of 
disloyalty. If, therefore, there was no charge of disloyalty 

58 



either stated or implied,-as the chief spokesmen for the 
prosecution admit —what is the meaning of that kind ot 
specification the vaUdity of which depends upon the clear 
assumption of the existence of a disloyal attitude on the 
part of the defendant? Then, too, the word "seditious is a 
purely legal concept and cannot possibly be made to apply 
to the letter of a sixteen year old schoolboy written for pri- 
vate consumption. In no true sense can it be said that the 
letter was "addressed" to the President of the United States. 
No student, even when he writes a letter "to" a govern- 
mental official, which however is to be read to his class- 
mates, (if in truth he is called upon to recite at all) really 
has in mind a direct communication between himself and 
that official. Lastly, it is worth noting that the specification, 
revealing as it does a prejudiced mind, contains at its worst 
not the accusation of an act performed, not even the accusa- 
tion of a declared point of view;— the specification merely 
asserts that the defendant stated that "he tvould consider it 
proper . ." There is no warranty in logic or m law for 
the assumption that a teacher is a fit subject for suspension 
or dismissal because of a mental attitude (supposedly) ex- 
pressed in a purely private interview characterized by a 
series of hypothetical questions and answers, a mental atti- 
tude revealing what he would do in some imaginary future, 
provided, that certain conditions arose in that future which 
would call forth his hypothetical attitude! It must never 
be lost to memory that all these specifications are built upon 
half-remembered assertions supposedly made by teachers 
who were called to a private interview by the Associate Su- 
perintendent. No official minutes were taken, no care was 
exerted to check up and state accurately on paper what the 
teachers really said and believed. The unreliability of the 
human memory, especially as it is reflected in the admit- 
tedly interested and prejudiced mind, is too well known a 
fact to require special attention. And yet, on nothing more 
substantial than admittedly an inadequate recollection, the 
chief witnesses for the prosecution managed to make it ap- 
pear that they had very definite evidence against the de- 
fendants If the reader will consult the volume of 
testimony taken at the trial (page 110), he will discover 
in relation to this specification 3 that the defendant in- 
sisted (when he -was interviewed by Dr. Tildsley) "that a 



59 



pupil as intelligent as Herman would never again repeat so 
offensive a blunder after such serious corrections as were 
contained in the revised essay. The records of Herman's 
scholarship indicate the truth of the above statement. Her- 
man's average record in English for six terms ivas 95%. 

Just look back at that queer third specification and re- 
consider how fundamentally preposterous it is* It asserts 
that the teacher "would consider it proper to allow the said 
pupil to write and to read aloud to his classmates similar 
seditious letters. ..." How is the teacher, — unless he 
be omniscient, — to know beforehand what the contents of 
a pupil's letter might be? Surely not even the most stupid 
pedagogue could expect a teacher to prevent a pupil from 
uniting at home a letter which might, for all he knew, ex- 
press sentiments not in accord with his own. if it be said 
that the topic itself would provoke such unacceptable senti- 
ments, the easy reply is that as a matter of fact, in the case 
under consideration, seventy-five out of seventy-six pupils, 
in response to that very same topic, did v^'rite satisfactorily 
patriotic letters. As for permitting a pupil who had of- 
fended for the first time in his career, — admittedly one of 
the best pupils in the High School, — to read a second letter 
(the contents of which had not yet been divulged) in class, — 
only an autocrat, a prussianized pegagogue, would conceive 
it to be his duty to prevent the reading of what might ul- 
timately prove to be a reprehensible letter. No true demo- 
crat, no honest student of modern education can stoop to the 
low level of conduct implied in the proposition that a patri- 
otic teacher would be willing to violate the right of free 
speech in behalf of mere suspicion. This is the most 
grossly un-American doctrine that a teacher can preach. 

For the especial enlightenment of the self-righteous 
patriots, we quote some very interesting lines and some 
very good American doctrines written and approved by that 
distinguished patriot, the Honorary President of The Amer- 
ican Defense Society, ex-President Theodore Roosevelt. In 
the May "Metropolitan," under the inspiring caption of 
"Lincoln and Free Speech", the Honorary President of The 
American Defense Society says : 

"Patriotism means to stand by the coimtry. It does not mean 
to stand by the President or any other public official save exactly 
to the degree in which he himself stands by the country. It is 
patriotic to support him in so far as he efficiently serves the 

60 



country. It is unpatriotic not to oppose him to the exact extent 
that by inefficiency or otherwise, he fails in his duty to stand by 
the country. In either event, it is unpatriotic not to tell the truth — 
whether about the President or about anyone else— save in the rare 
cases where this would make known to the enemy information o£ 
military value which would otherwise be unknown to him. 

"Sedition in the legal sense means to betray the Government, 

to give aid and comfort to the enemy; or to counsel resistance to 

the laws or to measures of government having the force of law. . . 

"A distinguished Federal Judge recently wrote me as follows: 

'.... Sedition is different. Anyone who directly advises 

or counsels resistance to measures of government is guilty of 
sedition. That, however, ought to be clearly distinguished 
from discussion of the wisdom or folly of measures of gov- 
ernment, or the honesty or competency of public offices. That 
is not sedition. It is within the protection of the first amend- 
ment. The electorate cannot be qualified to perform its duty 
in removing incompetent officers and securing the repeal of un- 
wise laws, unless those questions may be freely discussed. 

" 'The right to say wise things necessarily implies the right 
to say foolish things. The answer to foolish speech is wise 
speech and not force. The republic is founded upon the faith 
that if the American people are permitted freely to hear fool- 
ish and wise speech, a majority will choose the wise. If that 
faith is not justified, the republic is based on sand. John 
Milton said it- all in his defence of freedom of the press. 

" 'Let truth and error grapple. Whoever knew truth to be 
beaten in a fair fight ?' " 

How can the Schoolmasters' Association, which avow- 
edly accepts and enthusiastically endorses the leadership of 
Mr. Roosevelt, commit the great blunder of perverting the 
splendid definition of free speech in war time immortalized 
by their patriotic leader? Let the Schoolmasters' Commit- 
tee read and reread these fine sentences constituting Mr. 
Roosevelt's patriotic creed in war time and then let them try 
to find, if they can, even a shred of justification for the 
specifications already considered in this survey. 
Specification 4 : 

"That the said Samuel D. Schmalhausen, as evidenced 
by newspaper articles printed over his signature has a 
concept of his function as teacher that renders him unfit 
to be an instructor of high school students." 

The articles in question (only one of which appeared in 
a newspaper) refer to: (1) The Ethics of Wrongdoing, 
published in May, 1914 {three and a half years BEFORE the 
author of it was accused, partly because of it, of conduct un- 

61 



becoming a teacher) was printed in the radical educational 
magazine, "The American Teacher". It may illuminate 
several dark points if the reader will bear in mind that the 
reason-for-existence of The American Teacher has been its 
telling and courageous opposition to all forms of autocracy 
in education. It is a little amusing at this late date to have 
to refer to Dr. Tildsley's attitude toward the article in ques- 
tion. The article was originally written with the intention 
of contributing it to the monthly conference, which in those 
ancient days (1914), under the liberal leadership of the 
then Dr. Tildsley, was the great source of frank inter- 
change of opinion. The article never got itself read pri- 
marily because several hours had already been consumed in 
the reading and discussion of several other excellent essays 
on the relation between school and life. However, the 
writer, before submitting that elaborate essay containing 
many radical sociological viewpoints (The American 
Teacher version is a condensation) , for his Principal's judg- 
ment, being admonished not to do so lest those opinions 
antagonize the Principal, wrote a note to Dr. Tildsley ask- 
ing for his attitude on the great problem of freedom of 
thought and of speech. This is what Dr. John L. Tildsley 
wrote : 

"I certainly do believe in free thinking and free speech of well- 
thought out conclusions. I shall be glad to read your paper. I 
may not be in accord, but I shall be glad to discuss it with you." 

It cannot therefore be asserted with any show of sin- 
cerity that "The Ethics of Wrongdoing" was not thoroughly 
familiar to the chief prosecutor at least three and a half 
years before it occurred to him that it might be useful to 
lug in, what he had once looked upon as, to say the least, 
not an expression of opinion indicative of "conduct unbe- 
coming a teacher". In fact, in the June, 1915 issue of The 
American Teacher, there appears this bright little note of 
appreciation, signed by the Principal of the High School of 
Commerce, Dr. John L. Tildsley : 

"Editors, The American Teacher : 

Your paper is rendering a much needed service. It is desirable 
for all of us to hear or read things which are not always in accord 
with our set opinions. We teachers become set altogether too early 
in our careers. Your paper has a tendency to crack our plaster 
casts." 

A bit of local history will not be out of place. Some- 
time in the autumn of 1913, rumors filled the Clinton High 

62 



concerning mal-conduct in office of several students who 
had been employed by the General Organization as lunch- 
room assistants. Inasmuch as the facts in the case were 
never presented either to the faculty as a whole or to the 
student body as a whole, the fragmentary reports that 
reached the teachers and the pupils were in the nature of 
the case saturated with suspicion. Some of the teachers be- 
gan to realize the gravity of the situation only when several 
of their students who had hitherto been trustworthy and 
satisfactory, disappeared from heir classes. Rumor had it 
that they had been either suspended or dismissed. The 
teachers were not given the facts. Why not? Some of us felt 
that the star-chamber proceedings, as a result of which some 
very fine young fellows were driven out of school were not, 
whatever their decent intention, the kind of judicial pro- 
cedure which an American sense of fair play, open hearing, 
trial by jury, demanded as the very minimum of justice. 
It was as a reaction from the utterly secret and disreputable 
practise of Mr. Dotey, the official in charge of the star-cham- 
ber proceeding, (Mr. Dotey acting as witness, prosecuting 
attorney, judge, jury and hangman, all in one), that it was 
decided to discuss the whole subject of ethics in the high 
schools at the monthly conference. Let it be clearly borne 
in mind that The Ethics of Wrongdoing was written as a 
vigorous protest against the spirit of mediaevalism that per- 
vaded the Dotey star-chamber proceeding. It was a pas- 
sionate protest against brutality and the inquisitorial at- 
titude in relation to adolescent wrongdoing. Anyone famil- 
iar with that disgraceful episode, — at the center of which 
stood Mr. Dotey and his infamous spying squad, — will un- 
derstand and deeply sympathise with the informal phil- 
osophy of tolerance expressed in that article. The writer 
of it has no apologies to offer. In fact, he is glad to re- 
affirm his modest faith in the sanity and forcef ulness of that 
plea, for social sympathy in behalf of detected wrongdoers. 
As Thomas Mott Osborne said of the youthful offender: 
"There is really nothing wrong with the preponderating 
majority of the boys sent here. All that is needed is a 
little common sense in treating them." The sentiments con- 
tained in The Ethics of Wrongdoing are the familiar hu- 
manitarian creed of our time. The reader is referred to 
the liberalizing works of Professor Bury, Max Nordau, 

63 



Francisco Ferrer, Maria Montessori, Thomas Mott Osborne, 
for a fuller exposition of that humanitarian creed. 

Will any humane person object seriously to the follow- 
ing faithful summary of "The Ethics of Wrongdoing"? 

"I have abundant faith in our power as teachers to eliminate 
the petty cases of anti-social conduct flourishing in our midst, pro- 
vided only that we make our students our comrades, our co-workers. 
Those who laugh at this plan are the very ones who advocate the 
mediaeval ethics of persecution, of getting 'even,' of 'Do as I Tell 
You; in short, the ethics of vindictiveness. When our pupils shall 
have become class-conscious, social-minded citizens, all the problems 
of morality, now so conflicting, will be in the course of solution. 
When the boys or girls under our care get to feel that we are 
honestly their friends, their comrades, interested in the problems 
that agitate their fathers, their mothers and themselves, social 
solidarity will become the best guaranty of right social conduct. 

"It is we teachers who are sorely in need of a larger, work- 
ing-class ethics, a social philosophy that will set our minds aflame 
with the desire to fight with our proletarian pupils against the 
cunning exploiters in 'society.' It is we teachers who are in dire 
need of a new social outlook; our students will learn their morality 
from us, you may depend upon it. . . . 

"The most conspicuous fact on earth is pain, and knowingly to 
intensify, by public humiliation and punishment, the suffering of a 
guilty comrade, man or woman, boy or girl, Is criminal, simply 
criminal. 

"Do not expect too much and you will be disappointed less 
frequently. This world is deeply rooted in imperfections. Why not 
be as tolerant with others who do wrong as you are with yourself? 
It would do us all infinite spiritual good. Let's reminisce just a 
wee bit more. We shall be able to judge the more wisely." 

The second article referred to is "The Logic of Freest 
Speech", printed in The American Teacher, November, 1915 
(ttvo years BEFORE it occurred to Dr. Tildsley and Dr. Paul 
that it might possibly be used as a basis for the charge of 
"conduct unbecoming a teacher"). The motive that im- 
pelled the prosecution to introduce this article was rankly 
insincere. Not only is the article both as to date and con- 
tent utterly unrelated to the nature of the charge drawn up 
against Mr. Schmalhausen in November, 1917; the article 
itself expresses a point of view that, as Professor Bury's 
brilliant "History of Freedom of Thought" abundantly at- 
tests, has been the basis of the philosophy of liberal-minded- 
ness since the great and sincere days of the Greek philoso- 
phers. The point of view expressed in that article has 
been, if anything, even more deeply established by the mod- 

64 



ern irresistible trend tov/ard intellectual frankness in all 
affairs concerning the welfare of man. We know that the 
most recent excursions into dramatic psychology, under the 
inspiring leadership of the psycho-analysts, Freud, Jung, 
Jones, Brill, Stanley Hall, have re-discovered and re-invig- 
orated the doctrine of complete freedom of thought and of 
expression. There are medical reasons, — reasons of psycho- 
therapeutics, — why it is dangerous folly to choke off self- 
expression, even when it violates conventional taboos and 
the so-called "sacred" aspect of life. The truth, the whole 
truth, and nothing but the truth, — this is the deepest as- 
piration of the emancipated soul. The key to "The Logic of 
Freest Speech" is embodied in these excerpts : 

"Do we all believe in freedom of speech? I doubt it. We 
believe in what we approve. What we disapprove, we naturally 
dislike to hear uttered. Uncongenial utterances irritate us. What 
we call freedom is merely an accustomed routine: a system of ha-, 
bitual j^eas and nays. Every system is a vicious circle. What we 
oppose we loathe to hear, what we loathe to hear, all the more 
spitefully do we oppose. Any sensible definition of freedom must 
make way for exits from this vicious thraldom. I shall propose such 
a definition of freedom. 

"Why should speech be free? 

"First — ^Because everyone at times wants it to be chained. Our 
instincts are on the side of slavery, the slavery of complacency, 
the complacency of habit. 

"Second — Speech in bondage makes life duller. Dumb mutes 
do not feel the manifold thrill of living. 'Silence is golden' was 
spoken by a tactful, timid fool. Silence is usually evasion or 
treachery. Crooked politicians are silent and their silence, ironically 
enough, is worth its weight in gold. 

"Third — The powerful possess income, the meek possess only 
their tongues. Freedom of speech is the creation of the disin- 
herited. 'Money talks* is a cynical truth. Lacking money, the 
defeated must resort to tongues of fire. Freedom of speech is the 
only telling weapon in the hands of those who struggle for a finer 
standard of living. 

"Fourth — Freedom of speech cuts athwart the barriers of caste 
by endowing the mass with insights and prerogatives similar to 
those possessed by the masters. Only free speech is competent to 
betray and dethrone the fool in power. Only free speech can build 
articulations and cohesions between those who suffer and those who 
would understand them. 

"Fifth — 'Freedom of speech is the visible and meritorious sign 
of emancipation — emancipation from the tyranny of dogma and of 
dogmatist. The freedom of speech is its right to be critical and 
revolutionary. There are two types of people who oppose unlimited 
freedom of speech; conservatives and radicals. Conservatives damn 

65 



ths future and glorify the past. Radicals glorify their surmise of 
future and damn the dream of all other radicals. 

"You may count upon the fingers of one hand the advocates of 

Freest Speech. Yet only freest speech is roomy enough to allow 

standing space for all sorts and conditions of believers. Freest 

speech fulfills my definition of comprehensive honorable freedom." 

As to the third article under consideration, "The Trag- 
edy of Mai-Education", published in the New York Call 
(Oct. 28, 1917), the best defense the writer can make is to 
repeat that it is scrupulously accurate and scorchingly true. 
Its main ideas and attitudes are inspired by the educational 
contributions of the English educator. Dr. Edmond Holmes ; 
the distinguished medical psychologist, Prof. Boris Sidis; 
the famous psycho-analyst. Dr. Ernest Jones ; the Harvard 
educator, Prof. Paul Hanus; and finally by the works of 
Prof. Dewey. Even if in places, the expression is rhetori- 
cally a little too intense, the facts and observations under- 
lying it are all nevertheless perfectly true: the experience 
of every intellectually honest-minded teacher. The essence 
of that "Confessional" is crystallized in the following repre- 
sentative excerpt: 

"In my moods of introspection everything becomes so clear to 
me. I apprehend the large futility of my task. I see that school 
education does not educate. The discipline of our educational bar- 
racks makes children neither happier, nor wiser, nor better equipped 
to anticipate, and with wisdom to confront life's emergencies. I 
recall very vividly how William James, in his fine 'Talks to Teachers 
on Life's Ideals,' said repeatedly that the function of education is 
to prepare us for emergencies. He who could match life's vicissi- 
tudes with the most ample resourcefulness was the most educated 
person. Apply this wise precept to our school education and be- 
hold the pathos, the disquieting mockery of it all. Taking our 
pupils by and large, what crises will they have inevitably to en- 
counter as aspirants in a world of struggle and change ?****Puberty 
and the distracting dreams of sex ; unemployment and the vex- 
atious dreams of ambition ; fellowship and the baffling task of rec- 
onciling me and thee; citizenship and the bewildering loyalties of 
Socialism and individualism ; humanism and the contradictory ap- 
peals of impulse, instinct, reason, reflection, habit, custom and con- 
science ! These are the deeper problems involved in the art of living 
in a collectivity. What luminous insights into these perplexities 
are teachers in the habit of opening out to their muddle-headed 
studentship? Is it humanly surprising that disillusionment (of the 
whining sort), cheap cynicism, moral quackery, success-clap-trap, 
spiritual impotence, are the bj'-products of an education which de- 
liberately, by act of criminal negligence, ignores the unsweet truths 
about life?" 

66 



It will enlighten even the well informed reader to re- 
call some of the most famous pronouncements uttered by 
our most sincere humanists in behalf of unfettered freedom 
of thought and of expression. We append only a few be- 
cause of lack of space. These few, however, epitomize the 
historic tradition of all true lovers of freedom. 

PROF. FRANKLIN H. GIDDINGS: 

"Our government is based on the agreement both tacit 
and implied, that the minority shall always have the rights of 
free speech, of free press, and of free agitation, in order to con- 
vert itself if possible from a minority into a majority. As soon 
as these rights of the minority are denied, it will inevitably 
resort to secret meetings, conspiracies and finally force. In 
times of stress, it may be extremely embarrassing for the ma- 
jority to be hampered in quick, decisive action by an obstinate 
minority; but nevertheless the recognition of the right of the 
minority is our sole bond of unity. For this reason, I repeat 
that any attempt to interfere with the rights of free speech and 
free press is a blow at the very foundations of our government.'' 

THEODORE PARKER (The Mexican War) : 

"Your President tells us it is treason to talk so! Treason is 
it? Treason to discuss a war which the government made and 
which the people are made to pay for? Why, if the people cannot 
discuss the war they have got to fight and to pay for, who under 
heaven can? Whose business is it, if it is not yours and mine? 

"I think lightly of what is called treason against a government. 
That may be your duty today, or mine. But treason against the 
people, against mankind, against God, is a great sin, not lightly 
to be spoken of." 

WENDELL PHILLIPS: 

"No matter whose the lips that would speak, they must be 
free and ungagged. Let us believe that the whole of truth can 
never do harm to the whole of virtue; and remember that in order 
to get the whole of truth you must allow every man, right or 
wrong, freely to utter his conscience, and protect him in so doing. 
Entire unshackled freedom for every man's life, no matter what his 
doctrine — the safety of free discussion no matter how wide its 
range. The community which dares not protect its humblest and 
most hated member in the free utterance of his opinions, no matter 
how falsely or hateful, is only a gang of slaves. 

"If there is anything in the universe that can't stand discussion, 
let it crack." 

HENRY DAVID THOREAU: 

"Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, 
resign his conscience to the legislator? Why has every man a 
conscience, then? I think that we should be men first, and. subjects 

67 



afterwards. It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, 
so much as for the right. The only obligation which I have a right 
to assume is to do at any time v/hat I think right. 

"A free spoken man, of sound lungs, cannot draw a long 
breath, without causing your rotten institutions to come toppling 
down by the vacuum he makes. Freedom of speech! It hath not 
entered into your hearts to conceive what those words mean. *** 
The church, the state, the school, the magazines, think they are 
liberal and free! It is the freedom of the prison yard." 

WALT WHITMAN : 

"I say discuss all and expose all — I am for every topic openly: 
I say there can be no safety for These States without innovators — 
without free tongues, and ears willing to hear the tongues. 

"And I announce as a glory of These States that they respect- 
fully listen to propositions, reforms, fresh views and doctrines 
from successions of men and wogien. 

"Each age wath its own growth !" 

WOODROW WILSON: 

"If there is one thing we love more than another in the 
United States it is that every man should have the privilege, 
unmolested and uncriticized, to utter the real convictions of 
his mind. . . . 

"I believe that the wreakness of the American character is 
that there are so few^ growlers and kickers among us. . . . 

"Difference of opinion is a sort of mandate of conscience. . . 
. . "We have forgotten the very principle of our origin, if we 
have forgotten how to object, how to resist, how to agitate, 
how to pull down and build up, even to the extent of revolu- 
tionary practices, if it be necessary to readjust matters. . . . 

"For a long time this country has lacked one of the institu- 
tions which free men have always and everywhere held fundamental. 
For a long time there has been no sufficient opportunity of counsel 
among the people; no place and method of talk, of exchange of 
of opinion, of parle3^ . . . 

"I conceive it to be one of the needs of the hour to restore 
the processes of common counsel. . . . 

"We must learn, we free men, to meet as our fathers did, 
somehow, somewhere, for consultation. . . . 

"At this opening of a new age, in this its day of unrest and 
discontent, it is our part to clear the air, to bring about common 
counsel, to set up the parliament of the people. . . . 

"What are the right methods of politics? Why, the right 
methods are those of public discussion. . . . 

"The only thing that can ever make a free country is to keep 
a free, hopeful heart under every jacket in it. . . . 

"We have been told that it is unpatriotic to criticize public 
action. Well, if it is, there is a deep disgrace resting upon the 
origins of this nation. This nation originated in the sharpest 

63 



sort of criticism of public policy. We originated, to put it in 
the vernacular, in a kick? and if it be unpatriotic to kick^ why 
then the grown man is unlike the child. . . . 

"Keep the air clear with constant discussion. . . . 

"The whole purpose of democracy is that we may hold 
counsel with one another, so as not to depend on the under- 
standing of one man, but to depend upon the common counsel 
of all." 

JOHN STUART MILL: 

"No one can be a great thinker who does not recognize that as 
a thinker it is his first duty to follow his intellect to whatever con- 
clusion it may lead. Truth gains more even by the errors of one 
who, with due study and preparation, thinks for himself, than by 
true opinions of those who hold them only because they do not 
suffer themselves to think. 

"Where there is a tacit convention that principles are not to 
be disputed; where the discussion of the greatest questions which 
can occupy humanity is considered to be closed, we cannot hope 
to find that generally high scale of mental activity which has made 
some periods of history so remarkable. Never when controversy 
avoided the subjects which are large and important enough to 
kindle enthusiasm, was the mind of a people stirred up from its 
foundations, and the impulse given which raised even persons of 
the most ordinary intellect to something of the dignity of thinking 
beings." 

"If either of two opinions has a better claim than the other, 
not merely to be tolerated, but to be encouraged and counte- 
nanced, it is the one which happens at the particular time and 
place to be in a minority. That is the opinion, which, for the 
time being, represents the neglected interests." 

CHARLES BRADLAUGH : 

"Without free speech no search for truth is possible ; without 
free speech no discovery of truth is useful; without free speech 
progress is checked and the nations no longer march forward to- 
ward the nobler life which the future holds for man. Better a 
thousand fold abuse of free speech than denial of free speech. The 
abuse dies in a day, but the denial slays the life of the people and 
entombs the hope of the race." 

NORMAN ANGELL: 

"Now I am suggesting here that we are drifting to a condition 
of institutions calculated to suppress these heresies, to prevent 
such questions as these being asked. We believe that it is per- 
nicious that they should be asked at all, and the power of the State 
is being used for the purpose of preventing it. What I have been 
concerned to show is that our welfare and freedom really do de- 
pend upon our preserving this right of the individual conscience 
to the expression of its convictions; this right of the heretic to 
his heresy. 

69 



"And I base the claim here, not upon any conception of ab- 
stract 'right' — but upon utility, our need of heresy, upon the fact 
that if we do not preserve it, it is not alone the individual heretic 
who will suffer, but all of us, society. By suppressing the free 
dissemination of unpopular ideas we render ourselves incapable of 
governing ourselves to our own advantage and we shall perpetuate 
that condition of helplessness and slavery for the mass which all 
our history so far has shown." 

BERTRAND RUSSELL: 

"Men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth — ^more 
than ruin, more even than death. Thought is subversive and revo- 
lutionary, destructive and terrible; thought is merciless to privilege, 
established institutions, and comfortable habits; thought is anarchic 
and lawless, indifferent to authority, careless of the well-tried wis- 
dom of the ages. Thought looks into the pit of hell and is not 
afraid. It sees man, a feeble speck, surrounded by unfathomable 
depths of silence; yet it bears itself proudly, as unmoved as if it 
were lord of the universe. Thought is great and swift and free, 
the light of the world, and the chief glory of man. 

A MINOR INQUISITION 

(Interviews with Hyman Herman after the Suspension of 
Mr, Schmalhausen) 

Dates of Interviews: November 13, 15, 23. (Italics 
are ours.) 

(Note: This is a faithful copy of what Hyman Her- 
man himself noted down immediately after his several in- 
terviews. Hyman Herman was officially a fifth term stu- 
dent in November, 1917, and sixteen years of age.) 

I 

Tuesday, November 13, 1917 : 

The interviewers : 
Dr. Francis H. J. Paul, Principal 
Mr. Oscar W. Anthony, Vice-Principal 
Mr. Aaron I. Dotey, Special First Asst. 
Miss O'Rourke, Dr. Paul's Clerk 
(Taking notes) 
* Q. You have had Mr. Lapolla twice in this school ? 
Do you like him? 



* It is well to know that at the date of interview Mr. Lapolla was a 
member of the Flower Hospital Unit of the United States Army, having 
voluntarily joined the colors in June, 1917. 

70 



A. Yes. 

Q. Why? 

A. Because of his personality and his kindness to his 
pupils. 

Q. Aiid for nothing else ? 

A. Well, he stood for liberal ideas and allowed free 
discussion, that is, free speech in his classroom. 

Q. You believe a teacher ought to alloiv free discus- 
sion? 

A. Yes. 

Q. Even on birth control and sex problems? 

A. Well, the instructor ought to judge whether his 
pupils are mature enough to take it seriously. 

Q. What do you mean by "mature enough" ? 

A. He has his class for a term and by studying the 
general character of his class for the first part of the term, 
should be able by the latter part, to decide whether his 
pupils are serious minded. 

Q. If you were now in Poland and Poland were to 
get its autonomy, what kind of Government would you give 
it? 

A. The kind the United States has. 

Q. Why not that of Athens? 

A. What might have been good then, may not be satis- 
factory now. 

Q. But. this is no answer. Tell specifically why. 

A. I don't know enough of ancient history to judge. 

Q. Would you make any change in this Government? 

A. Yes, I would have the Cabinet elected by the peo- 
ple, and responsible to Congress; and I would take away 
the veto power from the President. 

Q. Wouldn't that make him like George V. of Eng- 
land? 

A. Oh, he has enough power left. 

(Then follow questions on the Spanish-American 
War and personal questions which show the answerer's 
horror of war, his desire for universal peace, and his be- 
lief in "Humanity above all". Further questions are 
asked on the entrance of this country into war with Ger- 
many to which the replies are that it was justified, — 
after much resentment on the part of Dr. Paul because 

71 



questions were asked to be repeated, the listener having 
failed to grasp their full significance. . . . After much 
questioning concerning the Open Letter, it was discov- 
ered that the culprit after having taken up German His- 
tory, had changed his mind on finding out the complete 
autocracy existing in Germany.) 

Q. Who is your history teacher? 

* A. Mr. Delaney. 



* Mr. Delaney, having voluntarily come to the "trial'' of the three 
teachers to testify that he had not personally played any part in Herman's 
conversion, v^as unfortunately not called to the witness stand by the 
defense because of lack of time. 

Q. So Mr. Delaney made you change your mind? 

A. No; hut "Robinson and Beard" did. (Authors of 
the famous High School text book in history.) 

Q. Did you always write compositions along this line? 

A. Yes; during my tvhole career in High School. 

Q. Any in Mr. Schmalhausen's class? 

A. No. I came in late into the class and the tvork was 

chiefly on the text books. 

Q. What periodicals do you read? 

A. Leslie's and Collier's. 

Q. What newspapers? 

A. The "Evening Mail" and "The Evening World." 

Q. No other paper? 

A. Very infrequently I read "The Call." 

Q. You don't buy it? 

A. No. 

Q. What books do you read ? 

A. Books by Tolstoi, London, Schopenauer, and Berg- 
son. I also enjoy novels. 

Q. Did you read any books by Richard Harding 
Davis ? 

A. Only one. 

Q. Any by Cooper? 

A. Many. 

Q. Do you belong to any athletic organization? 

A. No. 

Q. You attend public meetings or debates ? 

A. No. 

72 



Then follows a lecture on the necessity of phy- 
sical exercise to relieve the brain and a statement 
of suspension until father is brought.) 
(Finis) 

II 

Thursday, November 15, 1917. 

Interviewers : 

Same as above plus student's father. 
(Slow reading of the Open Letter to the Presi- 
dent and careful questioning of parent's patriot- 
ism. The father proved undeniably his loyalty and 
on being asked what he vv^ould do were a private 
instructor to cause such a letter to he luritten, an- 
swered that he would discharge the teacher.) 
* Q. Didn't you say that you didn't write such a letter 
in Mr. Loughran's class because you did not know what he 
liked? 

A. / don't remember having said a?iything of the sort; 
besides, I didn't have a chance to write such a composition 
because this country was not yet in war and the matter 
taken up was purely compository and topics of the day (ex- 
cluding the war) . 

Q. Who told you Siam was an autocracy? 
A. Mr. Delaney. 

Q. Doesn't that change the slogan of "War for De- 
mocracy?" 

A. Siam is too small to be regarded. 
Q. But even then (October 22nd), prior to your 
change in opinion, you admitted Germany was an autoc- 
racy. 

A. At the time, I wanted to satisfy those who were 
clamoring that ; and at the same time show Siam was more 
of an autocracy — in fact the only complete autocracy. 

Q. What happened after Miss Garrigues went out? 
Was there any protest? 

A. There was a note of protest. 
Q. By a majority? 



* Please notice the brutal insinuation cunningly injected into this 
malicious query. 

73 



A. No ; but a strong minority. 

Q. What did they say? 

A. They remarked that it was improper conduct on 
the part of an educated woman. 

Q. Nothing else said by the blatant minority? 

A. I was too busy thinking about my letter, since Miss 
Garrigues had threatened to publish them in "The Times," 
to hear. 

Q. So you were afraid to have your letter printed ? 

A. No ; but I wondered how it would be received and 
how it would look in the papers. 

Q. What did Mr. ScJunalhausen say? 

A. He quickly quieted the class and proceeded to the 
regular work. 

Q. Who were loudest in their remarks? 

A. Being taken up with my letter, I didn't observe. 

(Some more questions and a decree of indefin- 
ite suspension.) 

(Finis) 



III 

Thursday, November 23, 1917. 
Place: Board of Education; Room 515. 
Interviewers : 

Dr. Tildsley 
Mr. Pitts 

Several Superintendents 
(To the questions asked as to the tone of dis- 
respect, the replies were that it was of the writer's 
own volition ; he wished to be disrespectful and 
tried his best to be so. He was disrespectful be- 
cause he had lost respect for one whom he thought 
not to have given humanity its due respects.) 
Q. Who are you to judge? 

A. Any official, no matter how high, is mortal and is 
susceptible to criticism, I being one of the judges, as every 
human being is. 

Q. If Mr. Wilson were to step into this room, would 
you show any respect ? 

74 



A. Not if I felt as I have done prior to October 22nd. 
I'd only extend to him mere courtesy, having merited noth- 
ing else. 

Q. Would you lose respect for Dr. Paul because he 
hurt you in urging the Long-Hour Day? 

A. I am not considering minor details. A Federal 
Official loses my respect if he fails to respect the sacred 
rights of humanity. 

Q. What books, papers and periodicals have you read ? 

Note: Same questions and answers as above, includ- 
ing Cooper and Davis. 

(General Discussion about the Draft Law.) 

Q. Did you copy any author in your style of writing. 

A. / used my oiun ideas. 

Q. Do you speak Yiddish? 

A. Yes. 

Q. Do you contribute to the English or the Yiddish 
papers ? 

A. No, never. 

Q. What is the Yiddish term for "Your Excellency"? 

A. "Eyer Excellentz". 

(Discussions on Schopenauer follow.) 

Q. Where did you get your idea of "We are dust" ? 

A. From the Latin : "Pulvis es et in pulverem rever- 
teris". Besides, it is generally accepted as such. 

Q. Schopenauer does not use that style ? 

A. Not that I know of. 

Q. Do you attend any debates, public meetings or so- 
cialist gatherings? 

A. No; in fact, I am a strong Republican and spoke 
for Hughes during the 1916 campaign. 

Q. Were you recognized by The Republican Party? 

A. No ; I was merely a soap-box orator and spoke on 
the East Side. 

Q. What did you read in Bergson? 

A. Only a book on "Dreams." 

Q. Did any one tell you to read the book? 

A. (After much hesitation) Yes; Mr. Henry A. 
Schneer. 

Q. Why did he tell you to read the book ? 

A. We had a "Dramatic Circle" which met once a 

75 



week before school and discussed modern humor, verse, lit- 
erature, etc. 

Q. What was the first book ? 
A. "Spoon River Anthology." 

Q. Did you pick the book or did he give you cards con- 
taing the nam.e? 

A. Mr. Schneer gave us cards; but he gave us no 
books on "Sociology." 

Q. Who were some more authors? 
A. Leacock and a few others. 

(More questions of all kinds from about 9:30 
to 1 :30 ; finally three attempts at writing a note 
expressing regret for the disgrace DeWitt Clinton 
was suffering. Three attempts brought dissatis- 
faction and it was arranged that the note should 
be brought the next day, and if satisfactory, would 
re-admit him to school. He was also told to be 
present at three o'clock in Room 704. (Time and 
place of "trial".) However, the note was not 
enough and after it had been brought, he was asked 
to read it before the Assembly.) 

(Note: Finally, Hyman Herman was transferred to 
the Morris High School.) 

Dr. Tildsley's Method of Handling the Herman Case 
Testimony, Page 71 : 

"I have read these comments very carefully three or four 
times on that letter, and in my judgment there is no condemna- 
tion of the writer of this letter as having done a seditious, im- 
moral act. . . . The criticism is for the most part a technical 
criticism. In my judgment, a letter of that kind should not 
have been criticized in detail at all. The teacher could have 
seen at the first glance the spirit of the boy and attitude of the 
boy, and should have refused to accept such a letter at all, and 
should have simply written on it a general criticism that this 
letter shows an absolutely wrong attitude on the part of the 
boy, that it is essentially seditious and immoral, and then he 
should have called the boy into his presence and explained that 
to him and convinced him of that fact." 

This delightful bit of hindsight comes too late to be 
anything more than a pointed commentary upon the lack of 
intellectual sincerity which characterizes its author through- 
out. It may be pertinent to ask whether a difference m 
judgment (between a "superior" official and an "inferior") 
is sufficient basis either in ethics or in law to warrant the 

76 



dismissal of said inferior. The inaccurate reference to 
Herman's letter as being "seditious" and "immoral" carries 
its own obvious refutation. No honest expression of belief 
or opinion, — no matter how disrespectful or inadequate, — 
can be truthfully characterized as "immoral". Both ethics 
and law emphasize intention as the chief determinant of the 
morality or immorality of an act. If Herman's youthful 
letter of denunciation is to be characterized as "immoral," 
what fitting language of reprobation shall we choose for the 
infinitely numerous, denunciatory criticisms of governmetn- 
al officials by public citizens since "Government by the peo- 
ple" has been the accepted polity. Dr. Tildsley (who is not 
a master of style nor a professor of English) naturally con- 
fused two words : "disrespectful" and "immoral". He chose 
the latter word partly because of the necessity for appearing 
emotionally indignant, and partly because his so-called 
moral code lacks discriminatory values. His reference to 
Mr, Schmalhausen's incisive intellectual and moral criti- 
cisms of the Herman Letter as representing "for the most 
part a technical criticism" is a clear violation of the truth 
in the case. It may not be sufficient to quote the distin- 
guished and impartial authority of Professors Dewey and 
Montague, (both acute psychologists) to convince the hos- 
tile critic of the utter sufficiency, under the given conditions, 
of the criticisms made, not in the presence of the offending 
pupil, not in the presence of the whole class, but merely in 
the formal and private presence of Dr. Tildsley and Dr. 
Paul. The best and most conclusive evidence of the ade- 
quacy and pointedness of the criticisms of Herman's letter 
is obtained hy a careful and fair-minded reading of the 
criticisms themselves. Dr. Tildsley repeats again and again 
that in his judgment, the method of criticism should have 
been so and so. Well, suppose that he has a method of 
criticism which he considers to be indisputably superior to 
that of a given teacher. What's the inference? It's all the 
more amazing to learn that the possessor of so marvelous a 
critical method did absolutely nothing to persuade either 
the offending pupil or the accused teacher of the high valid- 
ity of that method. One can't escape the conclusion that 
Dr. Tildsley's self-sufficient attitude was the pure invention 
of a point of view that sounded eloquent at the "trial". His 
method in short, was a bold piece of mere guess-work. As 

77 



to his charming suggestion that the teacher "should have 
refused to accept such a letter at all", one fairly gasps at 
the brazen audacity that encouraged its utterance. How 
could the teacher have refused a letter which was collected 
by the head of the English Department two weeks before 
the existence of the letter was even made known to the 
teacher? The Associate Superintendent finally achieved a 
climax of unsurpassable audacity when he gave it as his 
opinion on the witness stand that the teacher "should have 
called the boy into his presence" and explained that to him 
and convinced him of that fact (namely, the seditious and 
immoral nature of his composition) ". The grotesque irrel- 
evance, not to say downright impudence, of this suggestion 
is clearly revealed when it is remembered (as Dr. Paul him- 
self admits) that the teacher was suspended before he was 
afforded any opportunity whatsoever to talk the matter over 
with his pupil. The object of this speedy suspension, thus 
preventing a friendly interview of understanding between 
teacher and pupil, was made perfectly clear by the several 
attempts of officials at DeWitt Clinton High and the Board 
of Education, on the inspiration of Dr. Tildsley, Dr. Paul 
and Mr. Dotey, to bulldoze Herman into making untruthful 
and damaging statements concerning his teacher. (Re-read 
carefully the remarkable summary of Herman's interviews.) 

Dr. Tildsley' s Educational Theory concerning Pupil Error 
(Case of the Herman Letter) 
(Dr. Tildsley on the stand) 
Testimony, Page 84 : 

Q. Do you not think that growing youths learn more 
from having errors pointed out, than from going along 
where there is no chance for their errors to become mani- 
fest? 

A. (Dr. Tildsley) I do not. 
Testimony, Page 86 : 

Q. How .could you better criticise a boy than by giv- 
ing him a chance to show what erroneous ideas he has and 
then correct them? 

A. I could get at his erroneous ideas in other ways 
than by that particular assignment. There are some as- 
signments in the world that are not proper for a classroom 
in a public school, and this is one of them. 

78 



Q. That is to say, that you think it is unsafe for De 
Witt Clinton High School children to frankly comment upon 
the attitude of the President of the United States in con- 
ducting the war against Germany? 

A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Although the answers to such assignment in the 
great majority of cases, according to Miss Garrigue's testi- 
mony, are to bring out patriotic essays from the students? 

A. Yes, sir, I still fnaintaiyi that. 

Q. You still maintain that? 

A. I do. 
Testimony, Page 88 : 

Q. Do you believe that it is right to let boys of this 
age in the DeWitt Clinton High School write the negative 
on this topic: "We seek no selfish ends in this world"? 

A. / ivould not give that topic to the boys of DeWitt 
Clintoyi High School in war times. 

Q. Would you consider it proper to allow students to 
write an essay on the negative of this proposition: "Con- 
scription is justifiable under a Democracy"? 

A. Not luhen conscription had been adopted by the 
Government as its policy. I woidd not allow the boys to 
ivrite a7i essay on that subject in the DeWitt Clinton High 
School. 

Q. Would you think that it was proper to permit boys 
of this High School to write an essay on the subject of 
"Revenue by bond issue or taxation"? 

A, Not during the sale of bonds. 

Q. Did you know that those things that I have called 
your attention to were in the examination papers of the 
DeWitt Clinton High School given last week? (November 
27, 1917.) 

A. / am not responsible for those papers. 

Testimony of Miss Garrigues in relation to the Assignment. 
Volume of Testimony, Page 27 : 

Q. The assignment as worded, did it really, in your 
opinion, call out anything more than such a discussion as 
we see every day in the various patriotic newspapers? 

A. If you put it that way ; no. 

Q. Exactly the same, is it not? 

A. Yes. 

79 



Q. And I suppose that you sometimes have commented 
frankly on the conduct of the war by the President? 
Mr. Mayer (Counsel for Prosecution, inter- 
rupting) : I object to that as immaterial and ir- 
relevant. 

Chairman Whalen: That is cross-examina- 
tion. All right. 

Q. Have you not, Miss Garrigues? 
A. Well, I feel at liberty to. 
Testimony, Page 28 : 

Q. Certainly. And do you not bear in mind as a 
teacher that it is such a subject which, through attrition of 
ideas, really bears fruit in getting some valuable principles 
forward which it is worth while for the community in gen- 
eral to think about and still be patriotic ? 

A. This particular question. I do not know that I 
can say that I feel that way about it. It was the wording 
that troubled me, not the question. It was the wording of 
the question. 

N. B. — Dr. Tildsley, on the other hand, op- 
posed the question utterly. Whose judgment 
counts ? 

Q. Have I not correctly stated the way the question 
was worded, "Write an open letter to the President and 
comment frankly upon his conduct of the war against the 
German Government"? 

A. The wording of the question I do not like. 
Q. And at any rate you have nothing to criticise from 
your own point of view, have you, that frank comment is 
the perfectly legitimate and proper thing for patriotic citi- 
zens whether they are old or young to indulge in ; is not that 
so? 

A. I would not answer that question yes or no. 
Q. Let us look at it from another point of view. 
Would you consider comment upon the conduct of the ivar 
bij the President ivhich was not frank a proper ivay to dis- 
cuss it? 

A. No. 

Q. Therefore, the element of frankness is essential to 
any discussion which is tvorth the ivhole? Is not that so? 

A. I suppose so. 
Testimony, Page 29 : 

80 



Is your trouble not perhaps that you have confused the 
word "comment" with the word "criticised"? 

A. Possibly. 

Q. There surely can be nothing wrong in making com- 
ments on this subject so long as they are patriotic, can 
there be ? 

A. / believe in debate in the classroom on all current 
topics. 

Q. This was a current topic ? 

A. Yes. 
Testimony, Page 30 : 

Q. Now, that you are viewing the subject in the light 
of your cross examination, do you not think that perhaps 
after all this was a perfectly legitimate subject to ask for 
frank comment in the sense of fair comment, on the subject 
which was of universal interest, and should be of interest 
to children as well as adults? 

A. They are not children. They are about seventeen 
years. 

Q. So much the better. Young men of such mature 
age? 

A. Of course I think that cnticism that comes out in 
the class is good, because it can be counteracted, but I do not 
feel that there was sufficient counteraction from the boys 
themselves. Whether there would have been if the recita- 
tion had been continued to the proper end, I do not know. 
(Our italics.) '^h W] 

N. B. — The reader must remember that at the 

recitation in question time permitted only four 

pupils to recite in class. 

THE CASE OF A. HENRY SCHNEER 

Item la. The Schoolmasters say that Mr. Schneer said 
that "Patriotism should not be discussed in the DeWitt 
Clinton High School ;" that he "does not believe in teaching 
patriotism." (Dr. Tildsley, P. 200, Dr. Paul, P. 215.) 

Our Answer. The truth in the case is abundantly re- 
vealed in the following evidence quoted from the volume of 
the Testimony, P. 252 and 253 : 

(Mr. Mayer, counsel for prosecution, cross-ex- 
amining Mr. Schneer) : 

81 



Q. Would you teach a boy, unqualifiedly, that one of 
his first duties, as a law-abiding citizen, is patriotism. 

A. Unqualifiedly and emphatically. 

Q. Now, what do you mean by patriotism? 

A. Patriotism to me means Americanism. American- 
ism to me means democracy. Democracy to me means civic 
service, therefore, patriotism finally means to me service 
to the community. 

Q. Service to the community? 

A. Always to the community. 

Q. Does it mean service to the constituted authority? 

A. Always as a part of the community, we must obey 
the laws laid down by constituted authorities. 

Q. In time of war? 

A. Yes, at all times. 

On page 210 of the Testimony, Dr. Tildsley, 

under cross-examination by Mr. Smyth, admits 

that Mr. Schneer agreed with his definition of pa- 
triotism. 

Q. Didn't he agree with your definition of patriotism? 

A. I think he accepted my definition of patriotism; 
yes, sir. 

lb. The Schoolmasters say (Pamphlet, P. 24) that 
Mr. Schneer "would not allow a person in a khaki uniform 
to appear on the platform of the DeWitt Clinton High 
School and speak to the students." 

"Later on, he said that if a person wearing a khaki 
uniform was allowed to speak, he would insist that a per- 
son who would present the opposite side be allowed to speak 
at the same time." (T. 21, T. 15, Anthony, 221.) So the 
Schoolmasters' Committee asserts. What is the truth ? Mr. 
Schneer actually said that he would permit both a soldier 
and a civilian to address the student body on the various 
phases of service to the government in time of war, both 
military and non-military, specifically mentioning Walter 
Lippman as a proper speaker on the latter phase of serv- 
ice. As Dr. Tildsley himself testified (P. 211 of Testi- 
mony) : "He certainly did allude to Walter Lippman, and 
say that, in fairness to the boy, those who did not have the 
uniform as well as those who did have a uniform should 
be entitled to speak." 

82 



I 



Ic. The Schoolmasters asse^'t (Pamphlet, P. 24) that 
Mr. Schneer "does not believe th^t the Board of Education 
has any right to have military training in the schools" (T. 
201, P. 215). What Mr. Schneer actually did say is that 
military training should not be introduced in the schools. 
The testimony speaks for itself. On P. 211 of the testimony. 
Dr. Tildsley says : "I made a statement that I believed the 
best authorities were agreed that military training for boys 
was not a desirable thing; that is, for the purpose of pro- 
ducing soldiers." And again on P. 215, Dr. Paul had to 
admit the whole truth. 

Q. Then it was all a question of a policy which had 
not even reached a nebulous form, was it not? 

A. (Dr. Paul) It was a question of a policy which 
had not yet come up before the Board . 

The attitude of the Board itself has always been op- 
posed to the introduction of militarism as is shown by the 
following statute : 
No. 713. Laws of 1910 : 

"Nothing herein contained indirectly shall be construed 
to authorize military training or drill in the public schools 
during school hours." 

d. "He wrote, in or about the year 1917, a bibliog- 
raphy of contemporary literature, copies of which he caused 
to be placed on sale in the store of the DeWitt Clinton High 
School, which contained references to works which should 
not have been called to the attention of the students of that 
school." 

Note: This pamphlet ("A Brief Guide to Contempo- 
rary Literature") contains, in the words of Mr. Schneer, 
"a booklover's humble choice of the 'best' that is being 
thought and said in contemporary letters — in Fiction, 
Poetry, Social Theory, Science and Philosophy." (Pamphlet, 
P. 2.) 

The committee fails to state directly their objections 
to the Bibliography, which is a small pamphlet of twenty 
pages, containing a list of the standard books of our time. 
Of the 200 books listed in the pamphlet, the committee se- 
lects but ten or so as being "unsuitable" for the students of 
the DeWitt Clinton High School. On what grounds? They 
do not say, definitely. We are asked to judge for ourselves 
the nature of their objection and to this effect they enum- 

83 



erate a few titles and sub-titles which they themselves have 
chosen from the pamphlet* Before taking up in detail the 
nature of the books objected to, we wish to remind the com- 
mittee that the Schneer pamphlet IN NO WAY features one 
type of book to the exclusion of others. So that the prin- 
ciple of selection is distinctly that of the committee's. Mod- 
ern psychology teaches that books in themselves cannot be 
objectionable; it is rather the subjective state of the con- 
temj^lative mind that determines the objection. As the say- 
ing goes, "To the pure, all is pure." We take it then that 
only 5 percent of the entire pamphlet is objectionable to 
the committee, whatever their objection may be. 

It will surprise the reader to find that all the books 
objected to (and all the books in the pamphlet) are none 
other than the great masterpieces of contemporary litera- 
ture and may be found in the Public Library. In fact, most 
of them are ON THE OPEN SHELVES of the circulation 
department. 

We submit herewith a partial list of the contents of the 
pamphlet including all the books objected to. The latter 
are printed in italics. 

Partial List of Books in the Pamphlet 

Non-Fiction 



Philosophy 
Bergson : Creative Evoliilion 
James: The Meaning of Truth 
Dewey: Creative Intelligence 



Biography 
Mill : Autobiography 
Kropotkin : Memoirs of a Revo- 
lutionist 
'Renan : Life of Christ 



Essay and Criticism 
Ellis: The New Spirit 
Ilamerton : Intellectual Life 
Huneker: Egoists 
Bergson : Laughter 
Key (Ellen) : Love and Mar- 
riage 



Social Theory 

Addams : A New Conscience 
and an Ancient Evil 

Hillquit : Socialism 

Dewey : Democracy and Educa- 
tion 

Eltzhacher: Anarchism 
Science 

Crile : Man — an Adaptive Mech- 
anism 

Ellis: Psychology of Sex 

Metchnikoff: Prolongation of 
Life 

Freud : Interpretation of Dreams 
Drama 

Galsworthy : Justice 

Shaw : Man and Superman 

Rostand : Cyrano de Bergerac 

Brieux : Three Plays 

Barrie : Half Hours 

Moody: The Great Divide 



84 



Fiction 

Note: Those contain subheadings, originated by the 

defendant (sub-titles) 



Rolland: Jean Christophe 

Arias of a vibrant soul. 
Bennett : Hilda Lessways 

Drabs of the daily grind. 
Dostoievsky: Crime and Punish- 
ment. 

The weird wraiths of the 

soul. 

Sorrows of the Willows ol 

the World. 
Arizihasheff : Sanine. 

The wilder fires of sex. 
London: The Call of the Wild. 

The grim rhythms of the 

primitive. 
France: The Red Lily 

With the wine of its crim- 
son petals. 
Flaubert: Madame Bovary 

The clouded crysals of love. 

Violets of tenderness. 
Loti: Iceland Fisherman 

Violets of tenderness. 
Andreyev: The Seven Wlio 

Were Hanged. 

The wailing chasms of the 



Butler: The Way of All Flesh 
The clattering of ikons. 

Conrad: Under Western Eyes 
The deep abysses of the soul. 

Hardy: Tess of the D'Urber- 
villes 
The fugues of sylvan harpsi- 
chords. 

Moore: Esther Waters 
Ebbtides of the lowly. 

Sudermann: The Song of Songs 
The cold grays of lovelight. 

Sinclair: The Divine Fire 

Warm with struggling man- 
hood. 

Tolstoy: Krcutser Sonata 
Shadowed Strains of Love. 

Turgeneff: Virgin Soil 

Deeper harmonies of the 
heart. 

Dreiser: The Genius 

The hidden springs of Sex 
and Desire. 

Galsworthy: The Dark Flower 
With a cold fragrance of 
petals. 



world. 

The reader will notice the great difficulty the commit- 
tee must have been laboring under. Scientifically speaking, 
there seems to be no principle of selection whatsoever. For 
if they object to Tolstoy, why not to Gorky; if they object 
to Flaubert, why not to Hardy ; if they object to Sudermann, 
why not to Moore— the books are all of the same type. In 
fact, Hardy's "Tess" has been the topic of heated discus- 
sion' by literary critics. We notice they object to Ellis, but 
not to Jung (!) or Freud ( !) whose work in Psycho-Analy- 
sis is but the experimental background of the psychologic 
theory. We notice they object to Eltzbacher, but not to 

Kropotkin. 

Some solution to this puzzle may be forthcommg m 
the theory that the committee is not acquainted with Hardy 
or Gorky or Jung. If so, what sense of selection, what 
sense of comparative values can the committee have, in con- 



85 



demning the pamphlet? Should not the defendant who is 
familiar with all the books at first hand, (shouldn't he) be 
given the benefit of the doubt? 

Perhaps, the committee objects to the books on the 
basis of their sub-titles, arguing that they are of an erotic 
nature. Let us see : 

Jean Christophe is characterized as "arias of a vibrant 
soul." Is it the "vibrant" they object to or the "soul"? 

The Divine Fire is characterized as "warm with strug- 
gling manhood." Is it the "warm" or the "struggling man- 
hood" to which they object? 

The Iceland Fisherman is characterized as "violets of 
tenderness." Is it "tenderness" to which they object, or 
the "violets" (!) 

And so we can go through the entire list, selecting such 
erotic ( !) words as "sex," "love," "desire," "lovelight," etc. 
Put in this way, the objection to the pamphlet assumes a 
rather ludicrous character. It cannot be that the commit- 
tee objects to "love" as such, for they would then have to 
condemn half the poems studied at the DeWitt Clinton High 
School. For example, the words, "love," "kisses," etc., ap- 
pear throughout the pages of Palgrave's Golden Treasury, 
a book used in the English classes ! 
For example : 

"The sunlight clasps the earth, 

And the moonbeams kiss the sea. 
What are all thy kisses worth. 

If thou kiss not me?" (P. 216.) 
Again, 

"Oh lift me from the grass 
I die! I faint! I fail! 
Let thy love and kisses rain 

On my lips and eyelids pale. 
My cheeks are cold and white, alas ! 

My heart beats loud and fast 
Oh press it to thhie otvn again, 

Where it will break at last." (P. 205.) 
Again, 

"She took me to her elfin grot 

And there she wept and sighed full sore 
And there I shut her ivild lOild eyes 
With kisses .four." (P. 224.) 

86 



"Take, oh take those lips aivay 

That so sweetly were forsworn, 
But my kisses bring again 

Bring again. 
Seals of love, but sealed in vain 

Sealed in vain!" (P. 29.) 

In view of the above, it would be just as absurd to dis- 
miss Miss Garrigues as head of the Department for pre- 
scribing such books to her English classes. It would be 
just as absurd to dismiss the faculty adviser of the school- 
store who, a few terms ago, sold to every English class a 
volume of Shakespeare containing the celebrated erotic 
poem of "Venus and Adonis" and "The Passionate Pilgrim." 
Modesty forbids us to quote therefrom. 

It cannot be, then, that the subtitles of the pamphlet 
are objectionable per se. For there are many books con- 
taining no sub-titles whatsoever, as for example, Dewey's 
Democracy and Education, Eltzbacher's Anarchism, the 
books on Drama, Science, Philosophy. Then again, we have 
the baffling case of the two books possessing the same sub- 
title (The Genius and Sister Carrie) only one of which the 
committee finds objectionable. 

The only possible theory left is that the committee ob- 
jects to the character of the books themselves, to the effect 
that they are "works which should not be called to the at- 
tention of the students at the DeWitt Clinton High School." 

Assuming that the committee is at least familiar %vith 
the books they object to, we take it that the objection is on 
the grounds of "impropriety" or "unsuitability" — terms 
which probably connote to the committee a type of book 
which may lead the innocent student astray or on the down- 
ward 'path of life. If this be so, we are glad to remind 
them that America's foremost critics — men like Henry 
James, William Lyon Phelps, Bliss Perry, appraise these 
very books as being "condemnatory of vice and immorality." 
In one instance the Catholic World speaks of the book ("The 
Divine Fire") as being, ethically, "one of the noblest, most 
inspiring of books." A few of them are required reading 
at our colleges and universities! (The Iceland Fisherman, 
Madame Bovary, Jean Christophe.) 

87 



All are recognized as masterpieces in their own genre. 

The Schoolmasters' report distinctly states (P. 33) 
that "Mr. Schneer's defenders either are ignorant of the 
character of these books or are lost to all sense of shame." 
Is Henry James "ignorant of the character of these books"? 
When he calls one of the books "one of the glories of lit- 
erature" or speaks of it as an "inimitable book" is he "lost 
to all sense of shame"? What can the committee say of 
the "Catholic World" — or the "Boston Transcript" or of 
Huneker or Bennett or Cannan ? 

If such is the laudatory spirit of literary criticism, we 
must condemn the committee as being out of tune with the 
modern spirit in literature or maliciously hypocritical 
in their prurient attitude toward the greatest classics of 
the day. 

The Character of the Books Objected To: 



What the Committee Says: 

"Either the defenders of Mr. 
Schneer are ignorant of the char- 
acter of these books or else they 
are lost to all sense of shame." 
(Page 33) 

(Shelf Mark) 
1. Jean Christophe 2-R 

by Rolland 



Madame Bovary 2-F 

by Flaubert 



The Divine Fire 2-S 

by May Sinclair 



Sanine QDM 

by Artzibasheff 



What Literary Critics Say : 



Gilbert Cannan says : 

"It is the first great book of 
the Twentieth Century.'' 
(Translator's Preface, Holt Edi- 
tion) 
Henry James says : 

"It is Flaubert's best. It is 
an inimitable work — it is one of 
the glories of French literature." 
(French Poets and Novelists, 
P. 201) 
The Catholic World says : 

"A keen understanding, an 
ethical interpretation and a lyric 
style have combined to produce 
one of the noblest, most inspir- 
ing books." (April, 1905) 
The Boston Transcript says : 

"It is a work of genius — it is 
of a magic, imperishable flavor." 
(Oct. 30, 1915) 
James Huneker says : 

"With few exceptions, most lat- 



88 



The Iceland Fisherman 
by Loti 



The Genius 

by Dreiser 

Song of Songs 

by Sudermann 



Kreutzer Sonata 
by Tolstoy 



Britanny." 
Novelists, 



fore- 



ter-day fiction is thin, pampering, 
artificial, compared with this au- 
thor's red-blooded genius." (Uni- 
corns, P. 45-47) 
2-L Henry James says : 

"It is a prose epic of the sea. 
There is always a charming pity 
and a kind of filial passion in his 
phrase when it rests upon the 
people and things of his wind- 
swept, wave-washed 
(Stephens: French 
P. 312) 
fi. The Genius NBO Arnold Bennett says : 

"Dreiser is America's 
most novelist." 
3-S William Lyon Phelps says: 

"We are absorbed by the con- 
templation of so masterly a 
piece of mental analysis." (Mod- 
ern Novelists, P. 156) 
2-T William Lyon Phelps says : 

"It is a masterpiece. It con- 
demns vice and immorality on 
every page." (Russian Novelists, 
P. 209) 

We wish to call special attention to the next book ob- 
jected to. We think that it deserves a special paragraph 
for itself, for in no uncertain terms it verifies unspeakable 
maliciousness behind the whole procedure. In its silent 
way, it condemns the members of the committee as being 
dishonest in their intent, desperate in their revengefulness 
and brutal in their shamelessness. It is nothing but a high- 
handed attempt to pervert the facts in the case. 

The committee condemns Eltzbacher's "Anarchism" as 
being "improper", presumably on sex grounds, and we dare 
say that there are some readers who do not see through 
the committee's trick. But what is the truth in the matter? 
Will it startle the committee to learn that this book HAS 
NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH SEX ! ! ! It is 
merely a thesis oh anarchism and its relation to the theories 
of government. Will it further startle the committee's 
shamefacedness in learning that the author himself is not 
an anarchist ! And finally, that the book is AGAINST an- 
archism?! ! 

What can the reader think of a committee that prates 



89 



of respectability and shame and propriety when they them- 
selves are guilty of being dishonest and dishonorable? Is 
this the kind of criticism based on a knowledge of the "char- 
acter of the books"? Is this the kind of evidence offered in 
support of the charge of "conduct unbecoming a teacher"? 

The next book (and the last) is also a witness of jus- 
tice and speaks rather loudly of the true motives behind 
the report of the Schoolmasters' Association. They con- 
demn Mr. Schneer and his defenders in no uncertain man- 
ner for having listed as one of the books under "Science" 
the celebrated work of Havelock Ellis, the original author- 
ity on "The Psychology of Sex." The objection cannot be 
against sex as such, for the high school syllabus in Biology 
(P. 8, April, 1917), requires of all teachers of First Yea?' 
biology the presentation of sex-principles, animal and hu- 
man. So that the objection is based against Ellis's presen- 
tation of the subject. And yet, strange to say. Hall's "Ado- 
lescence", a book almost identical in method, almost identi- 
cal in treatment, is to be found in the DeWitt Clinton High 
School Library, in full view of the students of the school 
Is Mr. Schneer to be dismissed for merely listing Ellis as 
one of the 200 authors in the pamphlet, without any special 
sign to distinguish it from the others? By the same logic, 
are the Schoolmasters going to dismiss Dr. Paul for "con- 
duct unbecoming a principal"? Consider the sub-title of 
the Hall book : 

ADOLESCENCE 

ITS PSYCHOLOGY AND ITS RELATION TO 
SEx, CRIME, ETC. 

We recommend to Dr. Paul for immediate perusal the 
chapters on "Sexual Development" (VI) and "Adolescent 
Love" (IX) and the frequent citations from the works of 
Ellis (278, 451, 470, 471, 480, 481, 491, 500, 501, 110, 116, 
119, 139, 141). 

To keep such a book in the library before the very same 
students whom the committee would forbid to read "Jean 
Christophe" and "The Iceland P^isherman" or any other of 
the books mentioned above is but another evidence of Dr. 
Paul's desire to "get" the defendant as one of the Council 
leaders in its fight for democracy — it has no other meaning. 

90 



We have seen that the objection to the pamphlet can- 
not be to the sub-titles as such or to the books as such. It 
remains to be seen whether Mr. Schneer should be dis- 
missed for "recommending" these books to the students of 
DeWitt Clinton. In other words, the books may be proper 
for adults but not for boys. If this be the argument, we 
must remind the committee that there are boys and boys, 
and that there are books and books. The reading pro- 
gramme of a boy like Sidis, or a page from the early boy- 
hood of John Stuart Mill, would humiliate many an adult. 
At the age of ten, the former was studying Calculus; at 
the age of ten, the latter was reading Cicero, Virgil and 
Herodotus. We ourselves know a boy at DeWitt Clinton 
who was an expert in logarithms at the age of seven. So 
that the problem is one of intellectual maturity rather than 
that of moral waywardness. The student at DeWitt Clin- 
ton (between the ages of 14 and 19) is not a "boy" in the 
current sense of the term. While not comparable to gen- 
iuses like Sidis and Mill, we are certain that the DeWitt 
Clinton boy's mind is typical of an unusual intellectual ma- 
turity. Their reading, their thinking, their discussion, their 
reactions — all attest to a distinctively "mature" type of high 
school student. Many of them reach college at sixteen and 
seventeen. Some have graduated from college at nineteen 
or twenty. Judging from the nature of the English assign- 
ments at Clinton (cf. supra) , it requires more than the mind 
of a "boy" to discuss such topics as the negative of con- 
scription or the affirmative of stydkes. 

The words of Dr. Tildsley himself (See "Testimony") 
lead to the same conclusion regarding the maturity of the 
average DeWitt Clinton student. He says: 

(Page 69) "Boys in different parts of the country are 
different, but I have been a very close observer of the type 
in the DeWitt Clinton High School, because I was in that 
school six years and I think I know that type of boy very 
well, and added to that I had to do with the same type of 
boy in the High School of Commerce, and he has very much 
the same characteristics. ' At DeWitt Clinton High School 
the boys at present are probably 80 per cent either of the 
first or second generations, of foreign birth, and they have 
some very decided interests; they are very much interested 
in the social life and the political life of the city; they are 

91 



exceedingly fond of discussion, and they have developed a 
rather high degree of critical ability and critical tendency, 
and the only thing that they like more than anything else 
I should say, is a discussion in social, political and economic 
topics; they are more interested in that than they are in 
being good or even than they are in athletics." 

Note the phrases Tildsley uses: "A high degree of 
critical ability and critical tendency." 

We don't ordinarily speak of a "boy" as being 'critical- 
minded' or as possessing 'critical ability.' 

The truth of the matter is that the Clinton "boy" of 
16 or 17 has the intellectual maturity of a young man. In 
fact, as far as his reading is concerned, we are not sur- 
prised that books of the type of Tolstoy or Gorky or An- 
dreyev or James are in constant demand at the Chatham 
Square and East Broadway branches of the Public Library. 
The young men who are reared on the East Side have a dis- 
tinct tendency toward the realistic element in Literature as 
in Life. Due to the press of a realistic, pushing, palpitant 
environment they early thrust aside the sentimental and the 
romantic delusion of life. They frown down upon anything 
that savors of the sillily amorous or abortively gushy. They 
are eager to know the brute realities of human existence. 
They fight bitterly to tear away the smoky films of exist- 
ence. They easily condemn the roseate aspects of the "liv- 
ing happily ever afterward." 

So that the authors in the Schneer pamphlet — the 
books objected to — are but part and parcel of their daily 
living, their daily reading. 

They are the young men who reach college at an un- 
usually early age — some of them are at medical college at 
seventeen, eighteen or nineteen. 

In the light of all this, the objection to the pamphlet 
as being "unsuitable" for "boys" becomes meaningless. 
Does the committee know that the fathers and mothers of 
these boys were married at 17 and 18? Does the commit- 
tee know that many of the teachers at Clinton (cf. Dotey) 
were out of college at nineteen — if not earlier. What is the 
average age of the young man and young woman at our 
"Teachers' Training School"? 

Does the committee know that many of the "boys" at 
Clinton work as ushers in the New York theatres where 

92 



"Mrs. Warren's Profession" and "Ghosts" and "Salome" 
and "Kreutzer Sonata" and "The Songs of Songs" have been 
played ? 

Does the committee know that the settlements fre- 
quently take their "boys" to see such plays as "Damaged 
Goods" and "Man and Superman"? 

The "boys" of Clinton cannot be repressed by the medie- 
val-mindedness, the crabbedness, the misguiding Puritan- 
ism of a Schoolmasters' Association report. King Canute 
tried to stem the tide. 

We can come to but one conclusion — and that is, that 
Dr. Paul was so desperate in his desire to "get" the defend- 
ant that he lost complete sight of Mr. Schneer's record as 
an admittedly enthusiastic teacher of mathematics and as 
a gentleman of high literary attainments. The pamphlet 
was but an excuse, a weak, flimsy attempt to hide the real 
facts in the case. It was Dr. Paul's method of disciplining 
the defendant for his courageous stand as one of the leaders 
of the Teachers' Council in their fight for better working 
conditions at Clinton (New York Times, October 12), for 
his activity in the Whalen Resolution incident (See Testi- 
mony) and for his contribution to the new order of Educa- 
tion. 

The committee claims that "this charge alone, brands 
Mr. Schneer as unfit for any school position whatsoever." 

We beg leave to ask the reader to compare this dis- 
tinguished opinion with the following opinions from such 
humble literary men as G. Stanley Hall, Randolph Bourne, 
Van Wyck Brooks, John Burroughs, J. B. Kerfoot, Edgar 
Lee Masters, Edward J. O'Brien, James Oppenheim, Bliss 
Perry, William Lyon Phelps, Booth Tarkington, Louis Un- 
termeyer, William A. White, Dr. Smith Ely Jelliffe and 
Theodore Dreiser. 



93 



DR. HALL'S LETTER 

CLARK UNIVERSITY 
Worcester, Massachusetts 

January 19, 1918. 
President's Office 
Teachers' Defense Committee, 
The Teachers' Union, 

Room 909, 70 Fifth Avenue, 
New York City. 
Gentlemen : 

In answer to your inquiry of January 11th, I can only say that if, as 
you say, Mr. Schnner has lost his position for printing this list of books, 
it is the most preposterous, high-handed, medieval proceeding that has 
come under my notice for many a year. There may be other things I 
do not know, which would modify my judgment, but I assume that it 
is because he has included one or two Freudian books. The movement 
these books represent deals to some extent with facts that modesty pre- 
vents free talk about, but the movement they represent is a cultural 
movement represented by many pamphlets, many journals, a large litera- 
ture, many societies in every land. (I, like many other psychologists 
have belonged to such a one for many years.) It is a movement that has 
given a new and wholesome as well as a great reenforcement to sex 
instruction. It represents 'things I have taught for years, and the only 
possible thing that can be said against it is that it is in some respects a 
little too medical for prudes. 

If this is the reason why this man is turned down, J am not fit for 
my job. The spirit of it all was like that of a bigot who when my 
"Adolescence" came out, gathered his family together and put it on the 
logs in his fire-place and burned it ceremonially, as unfit for any decent 
person to read. 

You should present this case to the National Society, Dr. Smith Ely 
Jelliflfe of New York, or Dr. W. A. White, editor of the Psycho-analytic 
Review, Government Hospital for the Insane, Washington, D. C. I am 

Very truly yours, 

(Signed) G. S. HALL. 

Edgar Lee Masters says : 

"If the schools and the teachers of the young do not advocate and 
explain the books mentioned in this list then they will surreptitiously 
be read and absorbed by those active and enquiring spirits who will 
shortly be the leaders of the race. This is not a frank facing of life." 

Dr. William A, White says : 

"That Mr. Schneer was dismissed solely for the preparation of this 
bibliography is well nigh inconceivable to me, except for the fact that I 
have only too frequently emphasized to me the existence in this twentieth 
century of persons with an outlook upon life which belongs, as Dr. Hall 
has intimated in his criticism, to the period of the middle ages. I am 
still, however, disposed to believe that if all of the facts could be known 
that there must be some other reason at the bottom of Mr. Schneer's 

94 



dismissal. The people who would dismiss a person for preparing such a 
bibliographjr could not possibly have read the things in it, otherwise 
they would not have dismissed him." 

Randolph Bourne says : 

"Certainly it is preposterous for a teacher to be discharged because 
of a bibliography of the best modern books. The list is admirable, — 
advanced, perhaps, but all the better, certainly not too advanced for New 
York High Schools." 

Van Wyck Brooks says : 

"It seems to me a most intelligent selection. How it could possibly 
form the basis for any attack on any teacher passes my understanding." 

John Burroughs says: 

"I see nothing in this pamphlet that any one can reasonably object to." 

J. B. Kerf oot says : 

"So far from regarding the pamphlet as containing grounds for the 
dismissal of a High School teacher, I should look upon it as evidencing 
at least a foundation for exceptional fitness." 

Edward J. O'Brien says : 

■'! regard Mr. Schneer's pamphlet as a model of its kind, and if 
it is the sole ground for his dismissal, I can only regret that the City 
of New York has so low an ideal of what constitutes education.' 

James Oppenheim says: 

"It seems to nie eminently excellent. If his dismissal was based on 
ilie authorship of this pamphlet, the conclusion is inevitable that he is 
the victim of official ignorance and stupidity or of deliberate malice." 

Bliss Perry says : 

"T have read the 'Guide' with great pleasure. I think it is an ad- 
mirable selection." 

William Lyon Phelps says: 

"It is an excellent collection of contemporary books with the signifi- 
cant line of interpretation. I find it full of good suggestions." 

Booth Tarkington says: 

"The pamphlet represents, as far as I can see, no misconduct on the 
part of the compiler. I do not see how he can be charged with moral 
error or misdemeanor." 

Louis Untermeyer says : 

"I am staggered — staggered at the thought that such an innocuous 
pamphlet could have been a cause for anyone's dismissal. It {the dis- 
missal) savors of the worst kind of Prussianism. It will be a terrible 
thing indeed if we, who are spending our blood to exterminate autocracy 
abroad, should come home to find it here in power, cowardly and crush- 
ing. We are fighting for a race of independently-thinking men, not for a 
generation of twitching marionettes." 

95 



Theodore Dreiser says : 

"In regard to dismissing Mr. Schneer for his 'Guide to Contemporary 
Literature,' my feeling, after an examination of the same, is that if such 
is the guiding intelligence of the schools, far better dismiss the schools." 

Dr. Smith Ely Jelliffe says : 

"The Book Reviews of The New York Times have published reviews 
of every item in this pamphlet. Possibly reading the daily newspapers 
will become an act to be censured by our Board of Education." 

MINOR POINTS 
Regarding Mr. Schneer's Bibliography 



What They Say: 

(Pamphlet Pg. 30) 
"Schneer claims that his booklet 
was approved by the Principal. 
Dr. Paul says that it was pre- 
sented to him simply as a com- 
plimentary copy and that nothing 
was said about placing it on sale ; 
he never expressed approval of 
the booklet." 



(Pamphlet pgs. 30 and 31) 
"Mr. Horton, the faculty mem- 
ber who is in charge of the stu- 
dent salesmen in the store, says 
that he did not know that the 
booklet was in the store until 
the time when objection was made 
to it and its removal was ordered. 

) 



(Pamphlet Pg. 31) 

"Schneer stated under oath 

that all the books in his list are 

to be had at the usual branches 

of the Public Library (Test. 231)" 



The Truth in the Case : 

Here again it is psychological 
truth that counts, not vindictive 
logical "truth." The very fact 
that Dr. Paul at the time of re- 
ceiving Schneer's booklet found 
absolutely nothing in it evoking 
his objection or resentment or 
disapproval is ample ground for 
Mr. Schneer's belief that Dr. 
Paul not only did not find the 
booklet reprehensible ; on the 
contrary, he found it very ac- 
ceptable. 

Dr. Paul's belated attempt to 
squirm out of an embarrassing 
situation only provokes cynical 
laughter. His repeated assertion 
that he knew nothing about the 
book's being on sale simply means 
that he was ignorant of a depart- 
ment for which he Is officially re- 
sponsible. How In the world did 
the booklet manage to get Itself 
placed In the G. O. Store? Some- 
oney officially responsible, Imust 
have O.K.'d it. That someone 
in the ultimate analysis is, of 
course, Dr. Paul himself. Ignor- 
ance reveals Incompetence, not 
virtue. 

What Mr. Schneer actually did 
say is the following: 

Q. These are all standard 
works are they not? 



96 



"Miss E. F. Cragin, Chief of A. Yes, sir, found in every 

Catalogue office, circulation de- library. 

partment, says that the following Q. Found in every library? 

books in his list are in no branch A. Yes, the statement No. 3 

of the Circulation Department: in the Introduction, makes 

it quite clear with reference to 

The Genius; The Song of the books in the Public Library. 

Songs ; Sanine ; Kreutzer Sonata ; 
Love's Coming of Age (The 
Committee in its ignorance made 
the mistake of substituting for 
this work of Carpenter's the 
title of another author's work, 
namely, "The Coming of Love)"; 
Anarchism; Phychology of Sex, 
Vol. 1. 



Will the reader try hard to unearth in what 
precise part of Mr. Schneer's testimony there is to 
be found any specific reference to the "Circulation 
Department"? He stated clearly and accurately 
that the books were to be found in the Public Li- 
brary. The Public Library, as even the School- 
masters' Committee must know, consists not only 
of a Circulation Department, but of Reference De- 
partments, Reading Rooms, etc. The Committee's 
insertion of the modifying phrase "Circulation De- 
partment" is a pure invention of outraged small- 
mindedness. As a pure matter of fact, however, 
we have put the actual shelf -mark alongside the 
books (see above) . 

THE CASE OF THOMAS MUFSON 

The gentlemen of the Schoolmasters' Association and 
of the American Defense Society have pronounced Mr. Muf- 
son guilty of "unpatriotic teaching" because he declined to 
answer certain questions bearing on his attitude toward 
the war. Why did the gentlemen of the aforementioned so- 
cieties fail to state the fact that he also refused to answer 
a question tending to bring out his attitude toward anar- 
chism? (Test p. 183.) In accordance with the absurd 
reasoning of the members of the Schoolmasters' Associa- 
tion and of the American Defense Society, Mr. Mufson, by 

97 



refusing to answer the question on anarchism, has proved 
himself an anarchist. But he is an orthodox Jew which is 
of itself sufficient proof that he is not an anarchist. The 
basic principle of Judaism is that law must govern society 
and the individual. Furthermore, he is a Socialist and thus 
believes, not in no government, but in more government ; he 
is opposed, not only to political, social and moral anarchy 
but to industrial anarchy as well. He no more favors an- 
archism than he favors Germany, the land where venomous 
anti-Semitism is a philosophy and a permanent political 
issue. He refused to answer the question on anarchism be- 
cause he thought the query too stupid to deserve an intelli- 
gent answer, which he indicated by asking a question in re- 
turn designed to be as ridiculous as the one which had been 
put to him. (Test. p. 183.) 

He refused to answer the questions relating to his at- 
titude on the war because (1) the question did not bear on 
the charge against him, which was "conduct unbecoming a 
teacher." Not a shred of evidence ivas presented, not a 
shred of evidence tvas in the possession of the prosecution 
to show that Mr. Mufson had done or said anything justi- 
fying the charge of "conduct unbecoming a teacher." The 
questions at the trial were plainly intended to elicit views. 
''Suppose something happened which could not happen, what 
would you do, if it did happen?" was the type of question 
asked." (2) He felt that his views on the war were mat- 
ters pertaining to his own conscience and he harbors the 
belief that the soul of Americanism is freedom of person- 
ality, freedom of conscience. (3) He felt that no one had 
any right to impugn his loyalty to his country without the 
shadow of a reason. 

He showed his feeling toward the German Autocracy 
in his letter to 'The Globe" of April 5, 1917. Test. p. 
178), signed, M. Thomas. The letter follows: 

His Third Prophecy 

Editor Globe: When Roumania first joined the Allies 
I sent you the following prophecy: I said Roumania, be- 
cause of her treachery to the Jews, would suffer the fate 
of Serbia. I further said that a few more blows delivered 
by Germany against Russia would send the Russian autoc- 
racy staggering to its death. Both of these predictions have 
been fulfilled, 

98 



Now let me once more assume the role of prophet. 
Revolution is about to strike again and this time it is going 
to strike in Germany. Reborn and glorious Russia, repub- 
lican France and liberal England, an invincible triumvirate 
of freedom, will very soon deliver a death blow to autocratic 
Germany. The kaiser and his war-hawks are doomed. At 
the psychological moment — and that moment is very near, 
nearer than the world imagines — the German people will 
rise like a storm and sweep from rejuvenated Europe the 
kaiser and his band of ruffians who call themselves the 
"Government" of Germany. No power on earth can keep 
that cleansing storm from bursting over Germany. A good 
and far-seeing Providence has staged the fearful but bene- 
ficent events which are now awing Europe. The divine pur- 
pose of the European war is clear. Kaiserism is tumbling 
to the earth to mingle its remains with the cursed debris of 
Russian czarism. The word of the Lord has gone forth. 

M. Thomas. 

New York, March 29. 

The Schoolmasters' Association and the American De- 
fense Society say that in that letter they were "unable to 
find any evidence of his love for the American Government." 
In the present world crisis love for one's country is well 
measured by the strength of one's opposition to the Ger- 
man autocracy. There can be no denying the fact that Mr. 
Mufson is unalterably opposed to the German autocracy. 
Furthermore he believes that he who shouts his love of 
country loudest loves his country least. Lip loyalty and 
pen loyalty are the easiest kinds of loyalty, behind which 
many a soulless rascal hides. 

Mr. Mufson did however indicate his patriotic senti- 
ments in an article of his which appeared in the "Twentieth 
Century Magazine" of July, 1910, entitled, "Walt Whitman, 
Poet of The New Age." In that article he wrote as follows : 

"Whitman, therefore, was the great Democrat. 'Amer- 
ica', he said, 'is the continent of glories, and of the triumph 
of freedom, and of the Democracies, and of the fruits of 
Society, and of all that is begun.' Too sadly true it is that 
corruption, coarseness, materialism abound in America. 
Yet in spite of it all. Whitman felt the American atmosphere 
is pervaded, infused, and vitalized by a spirit of grandeur 
and sublimity, a spirit that sleeps not, neither does it rest, 

99 



which penetrates unconsciously into the hearts of its peo- 
ple. America! magic word which contains within itself a 
solution of the problem of life ; blessed continent trembling 
with the wondrous ecstasy of a coming birth ; arena cleared 
for the great struggle of hearts and souls, from which shall 
arise with the light of God playing in its eyes, Liberty, De- 



mocracy 



The Schoolmasters' Association and the American De- 
fense Society affirm that Mr. Mufson proved himself guilty 
of "unpatriotic teaching" by writing a note to his Prin- 
cipal, on April 18, 1917, saying: "I shall not be able to 
take part in the parade tomorrow because I sincerely want 
peace and not war." This note, a private note of Mr. Muf- 
son's to Dr. Paul, Principal of the DeWitt Clinton High 
School, was given to the Schoolmasters' Association and 
The American Defense Society by Dr. Paul, one of the wit- 
nesses against Mr. Mufson, five months after the trial. The 
note was not used as evidence at the trial. We have here 
a striking example of that spirit of personal animosity 
which M^as a strong driving force behind the prosecution of 
all three teachers. 

At the time Mr. Mufson wrote that note our country 
had just entered the war. Until then, the United States 
had been to him the star of peace in the blackness of the 
world chaos, whose light, he hoped, would ^I^Blft under 
the influence of that supremely sweet and beautnul mes- 
sage of President Wilson, "We are a nation too proud to 
fight." Is it not understandable that such a state of mind 
and soul cannot be cast off like a garment? By what law 
or tenet of ethics can it be made a "crime to express a 
viewpoint which had until then been the accepted idealism 
of the President and of well-nigh the whole of America? 

Even in time of war, mad hate need not hold full sway, 
for hate, M^hich is blinding, may long lead the nations astray. 
There are better guides. 

ALL THE FACTS CORRECTLY STATED THAT LED 

UP TO THE DISMISSAL OF THE CLINTON 

TEACHERS 

We intend to show that the true cause of the inquisition 
at Clinton with its subsequent transfers and dismissals lay 
in the increasing activities and power of the democratic 

100 



Teachers' Council and their co-workers, seeking to oust au- 
tocratic methods and to inaugurate a regime of genuine 
democratic management. 

The Crucial Facts in the Case 

The INQUISITION was held at Clinton High because 
a critical situation had developed involving a conflict be- 
tween Dr. Paul, and a group of progressive teachers who 
had been known for years as opponents of autocratic 
methods in education. 

Dr. Paul, fearing that his incompetence as a principal 
would soon be exposed by these progressive teachers, ini- 
tiated the first move against them. What was this move? 
To Dr. Tildsley he pointed out as undesirable teachers those 
leaders of the opposition to Dr. Paul's autocracy who had 
also incurred the displeasure of three official superiors by 
their vigorous stand against the "Longer School Day." 

It was the autocratic imposition of the longer school 
day in September, 1917, that had brought dov/n on the head 
of Dr. Tildsley the strenuous criticism of the pupils and 
teachers in the high school system. The agitation had be- 
come so large and impressive at Clinton High that the Prin- 
cipal, unable to handle the situation, had to call in the as- 
sistance of Dr. Tildsley. Also, be it remembered, the self- 
same progressive teachers had been instrumental in crys- 
talizing the sentiment of more than 100 Clinton teachers in 
a public expression of their opposition to Mr. Whalen's au- 
tocratic method of dealing with the protests against the 
longer school day. 

At this juncture, these three official superiors, fearing 
the justified resentment of a public outraged at so much 
official incompetence, hit upon a familiar device for shifting 
the burden of blame to other shoulders. Dr. Paul, in agree- 
ment with Dr. Tildsley and Mr. Whalen, decided to fasten 
the blame for the social agitation upon those progressive 
teachers who had been so active as leaders of democracy 
in education. The trick almost succeeded. 

In the light of these facts, nothing can be more firmly 
grounded than the inference that the object of the IN- 
QUISITION at DeWitt Clinton High tvas to trap the so- 
called leaders of the ividely gronmig agitation for more de- 
mocracy in the school system. A conflict between autocracy 

101 



and democracy in education had been assuming proportions 
so impressive to the teaching body in general as to necessi- 
tate upon the part of the official superiors some drastic ac- 
tion, some show of authority wherewith to intimidate the 
liberal minded teachers. 

Is it any wonder that at the psychologic time the "dis- 
loyalty" issue was introduced to hide the real facts in the 
case? 

What They Say 

Page 8. "From the facts at hand the members of the 
Committee are convinced that the Whalen Resolutions were 
in no sense the cause of the other investigation." 

The Truth in the Case 

On November 12, 1917, Supt. Tildsley suspended the 
three teachers for "Holding Views" (Letter of Suspension) 
"subversive of discipline." 

Why were the records of the three men, given by Dr. 
Paul himself, uniformly high right through until June, 
1917? If, as the Schoolmasters' Committee loudly insinu- 
ates, these teachers had committed acts as early as April 
and May, 1917, (and in the case of one of the teachers, as 
early as May, 1914), which revealed a state of mind that 
could only be characterized as "conduct unbecoming a 
teacher", how in the name of common sense do they account 
for the excellent records of these teachers given originally 
by Dr. Tildsley and later by Dr. Paul? Or shall we say 
that the reason why the prosecution (and now the School- 
masters' Committee) found it valuable to include utterly 
irrelevant material v/as the- knowledge that in the hands of 
crafty manipulators, such interesting irrelevancies could be 
twisted and misinterpreted,, — in a period of emotional 
stress, — to the apparent discredit of the defendants? 

Why were the three teachers suspended in Novernber? 
Why not, for example, in October, in September, or last 
April, or May? For, in fact, according to the findings of 
the Schoolmasters' Committee, crucial "evidence" upon the 
basis of which the charge of conduct unbecoming a teacher 
might have been entered against these teachers, was already 
available as early as April, 1917, at which time the follow- 
ing "crimes" had already been committed: 

102 



(a) refusal to sign Mayor Mitchel's so-called loyalty- 
pledge, 

(b) signing of the famous protest against the method 
of compulsion used by the Board of Education in the im- 
position of its loyalty pledge, 

(c) the publication in newspapers of Dr. Paul's at- 
tempt to coerce teachers to sign the Mitchel pledge (even 
before the official declaration of war) , 

(d) the Peg Wofiington dinner at which plans were per- 
fected by the Teachers' Council and their progressive sup- 
porters to democratize the absolutist authority of Dr. Paul 
and to eradicate the infamous spying system of Mr. Dotey, 

(e) in May, 1917, the New Republic article, champion- 
ing .tolerance in war time, appeared, 

(f) continuation of the investigation into the Dotey 
system of squads and spying. Several teachers among the 
transferred and dismissed were receiving evidences as to 
the evils of the Dotey system, 

(g) in September, 1917, the opposition to the Tildsley 
longer school day was organizing among pupils and among 
teachers. This sentiment was especially strong at Clinton 
High School because it was the only school where the prin- 
cipal v/as incompetent to handle the situation, for not only 
did the strike spread at Clinton, but the principal had to 
invoke the aid of his official superiors to adjust a little local 
disturbance. 

Dr. Paul's Breach of Good Faith 

"The most illuminating incident has not yet been re- 
cited. At the close of the hearing (October 22, 1917), at 
the Board of Education, a teacher from the DeWitt Clinton 
High School walked up to the desk where Dr. John L. Tilds- 
ley, Mr. Whalen and Dr. F. H. J. Paul, principal of the 
DeWitt Clinton High School, were assembled and heard the 
following conversation : 

Dr. Paul to Mr. Whalen : " 'You're not serious about 
that meeting of the students to-morrow, are you?' 

Dr. Tildsley (interrupting) : 'No; it's all right. The 
pupils have had their hearing. They're done for. They're 
settled.' 

Dr. Paul (addressing both) : 'You see, if we held a 
meeting in our school to-morrow% some of the radical boys 
might get control of it, and there'd be more trouble.' 

103 



Mr. Whalen: 'Oh, that's all right. Don't take that 
seriously. You don't have to have a meeting.' 

"There was no meeting at the Clinton High on that 
promised to-morrow ; but instead, the principal got in touch 
with the young president of the so-called General Organiza- 
tion and by 'tactful diplomatic' appeal persuaded the youth- 
ful leader to abandon the idea of holding a mass meeting." 
(From an elaborate Summary of the Clinton situation by 
the suspended teachers. New York Evening Post, Novem- 
ber 16, 1917.) 

This treachery on the part of Dr. Paul was directly re- 
sponsible for the local outbreak culminating in a "strike" 
at Clinton High. Unable to handle the situation him.self, — 
created by his own duplicity, — he called in the assistance 
of Superintendent Tildsley who, with the aid of Dr. Dotey 
and a roomful of truant officers finally succeeded in restor- 
ing "order" — after some of the youthful "leaders" of the 
strike were suspended or discharged. Official incompetence 
could have gone no farther ! 

(h) On Oct. 18, (see N. Y. Times) the faculty of Clin- 
ton elected a committee of teachers, — of which Mr. Schmal- 
hausen was chairman, — to draw up a brief in opposition to 
the longer school day. 

(i) On Oct. 22, the hearing was given at which the 
representative teachers presented their briefs against the 
longer school day. 

(j) The Whalen meeting was called at Clinton High 
School on Wednesday, Oct. 24, and voted to publish a set 
of resolutions, rebuking Mr. Whalen for his autocratic at- 
titude towards teachers and pupils. 

(k) Publication of Whalen resolution in the news- 
papers, Oct. 26th. 

(1) The institution of the Whalen-Tildsley-Paul inves- 
tigation of the Teachers' CQuncil, Oct. 31, 1917. 

Several days after the "investigation" of the Teachers' 
Council and after the suspension of the three teachers, Mr. 
Penhollow, one of Dr. Paul's henchmen, circulated a peti- 
tion among the teachers for the abandonment of the insti- 
tution of the Teachers' Council. The petition was received 
so contemptuously as to compel its originators quickly to 
withdraw it. However, the bureaucratic clique at Clinton 
Hi£h c'id ^^t rest content with this rebuke. At the monthly 

104 



teachers' meeting (the first one after the suspension of the 
three teachers) , Dr. Paul, thinking to find the teachers off- 
guard, suddenly near the close of the meeting, put the ques- 
tion, (not even suggested as a motion by one of the teachers 
whom he dared to quote and misinterpret) , as to whether 
the teachers were in favor of officially administering a cen- 
sure to The Teachers' Council for the part it played in the 
Whalen Resolution situation! There is ample reason for 
believing that the sudden determination to transfer Mr. 
Jablonower was conceived that very afternoon (a day be- 
fore the transfers were officially announced at the Board) 
when, outraged by the sinister misinterpretation of Dr. 
Paul, Mr. J. got up to object to such malpractice. Of 
course, The Teachers' Council, far from being censured, was 
overwhelmingly endorsed as an institution by a vote of a 
hundred and five to forty-three (by a secret vote taken 
that very week) ! 

It will be observed from this accurate sequence of im- 
portant events that the closest relation exists between the 
provocation afforded by the Whalen resolutions and the in- 
quisition that immediately followed. If the reader will also 
bear in mind the very significant fact that the very first 
man to be interviewed was the Chairman of the Teachers' 
Council officially responsible for the Whalen Meeting; if 
the reader will further bear in mind the following testi- 
mony (pages 79-80) , he will arrive at the conclusion so often 
repeated by the defendants, that the primary immediate 
cause of the Whalen-Tildsley-Paul inquisition at Clinton 
High and the subsequent transfer of six teachers and the 
suspension of three, was undoubtedly the publication of the 
so-called Whalen Resolutions containing as they did a very 
straightforward criticism of "superior officials." 

TESTIMONY— PAGES 79-80. (Our Italics) 
Dr. Tildsley on the stand ; Mr. Smyth questioning. 
Q. Was the matter of the Teachers' Council Resolu- 
tions one of the important things? 

A. That was a very important thing ; yes, sir. 

Q. You took that up first ? 

A. / took that up first; yes, sir. 

Q. With Mr. Pickelsky? 

A. Yes, sir. 



105 



Q. And found that he had nothing to do ivith the reso- 
lution, did you not? 

A. I did not. I found that he presided at the meeting 
which passed the resolution. 

Q. He had nothing to do with the resokition, with its 
authorship ? 

A. He had nothing to do ivith its authorship, he said. 

Q. Nothing has been done with him. He still retains 
his position? 

A. He still retains his 'position. 

Q. The next man you saw was Kenneth W. Wright ? 

A. No, sir, it was not. 

Q. Are you sure about that? 

A. I think the next man I saw was Mr. Schneer, if I 
am not mistaken. 

Q. Was it not Mr. Kenneth W. Wright? 

A. I think he was not the next man. I saw Mr. Ken- 
neth Wright the same morning I saw Mr. Schmalhausen 
and Mr. Pickelsky. 

Q. You found out from Mr. Kenneth Wright that he 
did not vote for the resolution? 

A. Yes, sire, I did. 

Q. He has not been interfered with, has he? 

A. He has 7iot. 

Q. The next man you interviewed was Mr. Charles 
Ham? 

A. I think so. 

Q. You found he had voted for the resolution? 

A. Yes, sir. 

Q. He is transferred? 

A. He is. 

Q. And he is the first one. The next one you say, 
Mr. Henry Schneer, was it not? 

A. I think so". 

Q. You found that he had presented the resolution, 
did you not? 

A. I was told by Mr. Pickelsky he presented the reso- 
lution. 

Q. He has been suspended? 

A. He has heen suspended. 

Q. You know he did present the resolution ? 

A. I was told so by Mr. Pickelsky. 

106 



Q. The next man you saw was Mr, Schmalhausen ? 

A, We saw one or two other people, but Mr. Schmal- 
hausen ivas the next man I had any considerable intervieiv 
ivith. 

Q. You found that he ivrote the resolution, did you 
not? 

A. I don't recollect now, whether he did or did not. 

Q. He has been suspended ? 

A. He has been suspended; yes, sir. 

Q. Then you intervieiued. Mr. Mufson, did you not? 

A. I interviewed Mr. Mufson, not immediately, I be- 
lieve, but within that — on the same day, that I interviewed 
Mr. Schmalhausen. 

Q. You found he had voted for the resolution? 

A. I did not find Mr. Mufson had voted for the reso- 
lution. 

Q. What did you find he had done? 

A. It will come out later, I believe. 

Q. Cannot you tell me? 

A. Mr. Mufson is on charges before this body. 

Q. All right. I am representing him. I will protect 
him. 

A. If the Chairman says I can answer that question 
I can answer it. 

Chairman Whalen : You had better wait until his case 
comes up. 

Mr. Smyth: I loant to get the tvhole attiticde of this 
gentleman. 

Chairman Whalen : You have got it. 

Mr. Smyth : I think I have and I want to complete it. 

Mr. Mayer: / think this cross examination has been 
pursued far enough. 

Chairman Whalen: Do not waste any more time on 
that ,Mr. Smyth. 

Mr. Smyth: All right, if your Honor is convinced as 
I am convinced, I will go to something else. 

Chairman Whalen : Take up something else, noiv. 



107 



THE WHALEN MOTIF 

(A) (Testimony, Pages 34 and 35) 

Miss Garrigues on the Stand. 
By Mr. Smyth : 

Q. Did you not state, Miss Garrigues, that the object 
of this investigation which had been undertaken against Mr. 
Schmalhausen was to get the ringleaders of the Teachers' 
Council who were close to Mr. Whalen in the matter of 
lengthening the school hours? 

Mr. Mayer: That is objected to as immaterial and ir- 
relevant. 

Chairman Whalen : I will let her answer that. 

A. I do not remember. I talked to Mr. Horowitz I 
know, but I do not remember that I made any such full 
statement as that. Perhaps I have gotten the wording 
wrong. 

Q. Will you tell us what your recollection is of such a 
conversation with Mr. Horowitz ? 

A. If I said anything of the sort I said I thought it had 
some influence. 

Q. What is that? 

A. If I said anything of that sort — I may have said — 

Q. Said anything of what sort? 

A. Of the kind you are asking me. 

Q. Is it your recollection that you did say something 
of that kind? 

A. Very likely. 

Q. If you did, if it is true that you did, very likely it 
was because you believed it, is not that so ? 

A. Yes, I think it had influence. 

(B) Volume of Testimony, Page 73 

Dr. Tildsley being cross-examined by Mr. Smyth: 

Q. When you had the first interview with Mr. Schmal- 
hausen do you recollect the opening topic of your interview? 

A. The opening topic of our first intervieiv urns the 
discussion of the resolution passed by the Teachers' Council. 

Q. Why was that particular topic brought up first? 

A. Because Mr. Schmalhausen was, if I am not mis- 
taken, a member of the Teachers' Council of that school, 
and I interviewed first Mr. Pickelsky, the Chairman of the 
Council, and Mr. Pickelsky told me that Mr. Schneer handed 

108 



him the resolution, and so I interviewed Mr. Schneer and 
then afterwards several members of the Council. I told 
you I had two aims in going to that school. 

Q. You ivere at the time engaged in trying to fasten 
responsibility for the resolution that had been passed on 
the evening of the 22nd of October when you had those in- 
terviews with Mr. Schmalhausen ? 

A. I was trying to find out what was meant by the 
resolutions and why they were passed. 

Q. You ivere also trying to find out ivho had been in- 
strumental in drawing them up and ivho had presented 
them ? 

A. / asked those questions; yes, sir. 
Q. Those were the first questions you asked? 
A. Not the first questions. 
Q. They were among the first? 
A. Among the first; yes, sir. 
(C) Volume of Testimony, Pages 204, 205, 206 
Page 204, Cross Examination by Mr. Smyth : 
Dr. Tildsley speaking: 

Q. What was the first interview you had ? 
A. The first interview was an interview in the Even- 
ing School Oflice, I believe on the 31st of October, the first 
day I was over there, luhen I asked him about the resolu- 
tions being passed by the Meeting of the Teachers' Council, 
because Mr. Pickelsky had told me that Mr. Schneer handed 
him the resolutions. 

Q. Now, there was a stenographic report taken of the 
first intervieiu, was there not? 
A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And you gave part of that stenographic report to 
Mr. Schneer, did you not? 

A. He received all that I received. 
Q. Is this the extract? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Page 205 ; Mr. Smyth : I offer it in evidence .... 

Mr. Smyth : I will not take up the time now to read all 
these questions and answers, but the Committee can see 
by going over it, if they will, that these are all questions 
and ansivers relating to the subject of the Teachers' Coun- 
cil in which he is very closely cross examined, a*id that 

109 



seems to be the whole thing on Dr. Tildsley's mind at that 

time. 

Testimony, Page 206 : 

Q. When you had been told by the Chairman then you 
went prepared with a stenographer to ask him on that 
point, did you not? 

A. Not to ask him on that point; to elicit the truth 
on that point. 

Q. To make a record against him, did you not ? 

A. To make a record of the interview. 

Q. It was not until the third interview that you 
thought of going thru an academic discussion as to what he 
would do under given circumstances in relation to the 
pupils? 

A. Yes, I thought of it before that. 

Q. Did you really think of it previous to or before 
you had fastened responsibility for the resolutions on Mr. 
Schneer? 

A.* I never fastened responsibility for the resolutions 
on Mr. Schneer. 

Q. Did you not state that you did ? 

A. No, sir, I did not. 

Q. You tried to, did you not? 

A. I tried to find out whether Mr. Schneer had drawn 
up the resolutions. Mr. Schmalhausen has already testified 
that he drew them up. 
Testimony, Page 207 : 

Q. Was not your object in getting a stenographer so 
that you would have a record of it that he was the one who 
handed them to the Chairman, and after you got that then 
you went ahead trying to trap him by asking academic ques- 
tions ? 

A. No, sir. 

Perhaps the most interesting evidence of the significant 
part played by The Whalen Resolutions in the "trial" of the 
three Clinton teachers was furnished gratuitously by Mr. 
John Whalen, Chairman of the Committee that tried the 
three teachers. As Dr. Ira S. Wile, of the old Board of 
Education, clearly pointed out on the day of decision, noth- 
ing was so thought-provoking in his estimation as the sud- 
den and strange intrusion of the Whalen Motif at the very 
close of the "trial", at 12:15 a. m., at a point in the evolu- 

110 



tion of the proceedings when the thing farthest removed 
from the attention of the whole committee was precisely 
the Whalen Resolutions. What one disturbing thing sug- 
gested itself at that late and unrelated hour to the mind of 
Chairman Whalen ? Let the testimony speak eloquently for 
itself. 

(D) Testimony, Pages 259, 260, 261 

Chairman Whalen : I would like to have you (address- 
ing Mr. Smyth) to ask him (that is, Mr. Schneer), if you 
will, for me, if 105 teachers of the Teachers' Council were 
present when the resolutions were adopted; if they were 
present, if he will be good enough to give you the names of 
the members of the Council who were present. 

Mr. Smyth: Yes. 

The Witness : One hundred and five teachers were 
present. The names of the Teachers' Council are the fol- 
lowing : Mr. Frank Pickelsky, Chairman ; Charles Ham, a 
member, now transferred ; Samuel Schmalhausen, now sus- 
pended; A. Henry Schneer, now suspended. Those were 
the four members of the Teachers' Council at that time of 
one year's standing. About that time also a certain mem- 
ber of the Teachers' Council had been appointed assistant 
principal, and Mr. Kenneth W. Wright, October 31st, was 
elected to substitute for Mr. Keller. About November 1st 
or 2nd, two members were elected from each individual an- 
nex of the DeWitt Clinton High School, of which there are 
two. At the time of the Whalen Resolutions there were 
practically four members: Mr. Pickelsky, Chairman; Mr. 
Charles Ham, transferred ; Mr. Samuel Schmalhausen, sus- 
pended ; Mr. A. Henry Schneer, suspended. 

Chairman Whalen: I am not asking about those now. 
I am asking you, and I am asking Mr. Smyth to ask you, 
if these one hundred and five members of the Teachers' 
Council were present when the resolutions were adopted ? 

The Witness: There are only five members of the 
Teachers' Council. 

Chairman Whalen: I thought you said one hundred 
and five? 

The Witness: One hundred and five members of the 
teaching body. 

Chairman Whalen: There are five members of the 
Teachers' Council? 

Ill 



Chairman Whalen: Yes, ivill you give Mr. Smyth the 
names of the one hundred members of the teaching body 
ivho voted for the resolution? 

Chairman Whalen : Who were they ? 

The Witness : The names of the one hundred and four? 

Mr. Smyth : That is what he wants. 

Chairman Whalen : Give them to him. 

The Witness : Right now ? 

Chairman Whalen: You may send them to me by to- 
morroiv morning; will you do that? How many teachers 
are there ? 

The Witness : About one hundred and fifty-eight. 

Chairman Whalen: Will you give to Mr. Smyth the 
names ? 

The Witness : Yes, sir. 

On what other hypothesis than the direct and over- 
whelming importance of the Whalen Resolutions as the im- 
mediate cause of the several incidents that led to the sus- 
pension of the three Clinton teachers, can one explain the 
relevance of the numerous evidences quoted from the volume 
of Testimony, all pertaining to the one theme, — the Whalen 
Resolutions. Is it a mere matter of thoughtless accident 
that the only official stenographic report (which Dr. Tildsley 
ordered taken in one of his private interviews with Mr, 
Schneer at Clinton High) relates ivholly and exclusively to 
the one theme, the Whalen Resolutions ; to the relationship 
between those Resolutions and the part played in their 
origination and publication by various members of the 
Teachers' Council that was officially responsible for them? 
In this effort to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt the 
crucial importance of the Whalen Resolutions, we must not 
overlook another outstanding fact; that at the Board of 
Education, at its first meeting after the publication of the 
Whalen Resolutions, the President, William G. Willcox, 
opened that meeting with the following comment uopn the 
Whalen Resolutions : "I submit that such a statement can- 
not be allowed to pass unnoticed by this Board. If any 
teachers in the system have such a false conception of their 
position as to brand as 'autocratic and arrogant' Mr. 
Whalen's statement that neither pupils nor teachers will be 
allowed to run the schools, they should promptly be unde- 
ceived. . . this group of teachers deliberately set an ex- 

112 



ample of insubordination which could hardly fail to have 
the effect of encouraging a similar spirit among the dis- 
orderly pupils." (Our italics.) In the New York Evening 
Post of November 20, 1917, Dr. Tildsley is quoted as say- 
ing : "I do not believe that teachers have any right, as an 
organized body, to censure the Board of Education. This 
these teachers did in condemning the statements of Mr. 
Whalen." (Our italics.) Commenting upon this situation 
the New Republic, in its editorial of November 24th, writes : 
"It looks as if Superintendent Tildsley had been commis- 
sioned to 'get something on' these teachers antecedently 
condemned. Only the fairest and openest trial can allay 
this suspicion of crooked dealing." In another part of the 
same editorial these trenchant lines appear: "Moreover, 
the evidence upon which the charge of 'subversive views' is 
based appears to have been gathered by Superintendent 
Tildsly through a personal inquisition in which the sus- 
pected teachers were forced to reply to a number of in- 
quiries of the familiar 'catch-question' type of the crafty 
and unscrupulous pedagogue." 

If, as the Schoolmasters' Committee pretends to be- 
lieve, the Whalen Resolutions were not the efficient cause 
of the investigation at Clinton High, how is it possible to ex- 
plain their vast and overshadowing importance throughout 
the case and at the "trial"? (Isn't it psychologically inter- 
esting that the most patent cause of the inquisition was the 
very one not even faintly alluded to in the specifications and 
charges conceived by Superintendent Tildsley against the 
Clinton teachers?) How shall the fact be explained — a most 
unique and thought-provoking fact, — that Mr. Kenneth W. 
Wright, recently elected a member of the Teachers' Coun- 
cil, (October, 1917), after admitting that he had voted 
against the Whalen Resolution, was released by Dr. Tildsley 
without further questioning after a five minute interview? 
Most significant of all is the overtowering fact that all the 
Clinton teachers disciplined by "the powers that be", 
namely, the transferred and the dismissed and their fellow- 
sympathizers among the faculty who suffered themselves to 
be haled before the inquisition, had all taken an active part 
in the Teachers' Council movement in its oppotitic^ to the 
Longer-Schoolday culminating in the Whalen Resolutions ; 
a movement that in October, 1917, had achieved suflficient 

113 



power to express in unmistakable terms its opposition to the 
autocratic conduct of Dr. Tildsley, Mr. Whalen and Dr. Paul. 
The relation between the agitation against the Longer- 
Schoolday and the "Whalen" Resolutions will be readily in- 
ferred from the appended : 

The Teachers' Council of the De Witt Clinton High School adopted 
resolutions on Wednesday denouncing as undemocratic the statements 
made by Chairman John Whalen at the hearing of the high schools com- 
mittee on Monday, when he repeatedly asserted that he wanted it clearly- 
understood that "neither the pupils nor the teachers would be allowed to 
run the schools," and "I want you to understand that if you pupils don't 
go back and behave yourselves I'll close down all the schools. Do you 
understand that?" 

The resolutions read : 

"As self-respecting teachers we cannot allow so arrogant and 
injudicious a statement to go unchallenged. We deem it both un- 
democratic in spirit and unprofessional in motive. 

"Therefore, we teachers of the De Witt Clinton High School 
do hereby resolve : 

"FIRST: — That it is the sense of this meeting that John 
Whalen's assertion is contrary to the modern spirit of true democracy. 
"SECOND: — That remarks of this type and threats to close 
the high schools are detrimental to good discipline and good teaching. 
"THIRD: — ^It is the sense of this meeting that the autocratic 
assertion of John Whalen is subversive of the proper spirit under- 
lying our educational institutions. 

"FOURTH:— Be it finally resolved: 

"That the best interests of school administration demand the 
cordial recognition of the classroom teacher as a most vital in- 
fluence in the educational system." 

(From "The Globe," October 26, 1017.) 

MINOR POINTS 

As to the Whalen Meeting at Clinton High School. 
Testimony, Page 77. 

Dr. Tildsley speaks: (Discussing the relation of the 
Whalen Resolutions to the series of interviews at Clinton 
High.) 

"/ found out that there ivere one hundred at 
that meeting and that no record had been kept of 
the attendance during that meeting; therefore it 
was immaterial as to who the specific people were. 

Does the Schoolmasters' Committee ask for more hon- 
orable corroborative evidence of the truthfulness of the de- 

114 



fendants' assertion that there were a hundred or more Clin- 
ton teachers present at the famous Whalen-Resolution Meet- 
ing (October 24, 1917) ? It must be remembered that the 
very final sentence of the communication containing the list 
of the teachers who had voted against and those who had 
voted for the Whalen Resolutions, reads as follows : "This 
list comprised all those present as far as our knowledge 
goes." It was never claimed by the defendents that they 
had kept a strict tabulation of the names and length-of-stay 
of all the teachers who crowded the "Reception Room" at 
Clinton High on that famous Wednesday. Their judgment 
was based upon a rough off-hand calculation of the capacity 
of the room. A very careful count was taken, — in the na- 
ture of the case, — of the persons who voted against the 
Whalen Resolutions. It was natural, almost inevitable, for 
the enthusiastic Teachers' Council to assume (no knowledge 
to the contrary being at hand) that all those persons who 
did not vote against the resolutions, had voted for them. 
Though this may not be the soundest logic, it is yet a famil- 
iar psychologic method of judgment especially natural in 
an emotional situation. It was assumed that any teacher at 
that informal meeting who had any definite objections to 
the resolutions would certainly voice them either in a speech 
or by vote. It was therefore permissible to assume that all 
persons with the exception of the declared opponents of the 
Whalen Resolutions were clearly in favor of their adoption 
and publication. May we point out to the Schoolmasters' 
Committee, — that appears to possess an abnormal talent for 
discovering the mote in a fellow-mortal's eye and for naively 
overlooking the beam in its own, — that on page 5 of its own 
incoherent report, the statement appears (in relation to the 
April 21st meeting of Clinton teachers at the Peg Woffing- 
ton Coffee House) that "there were foi'ty-one members of 
the faculty present. . .". But since no record was kept 
of the attendance at that meeting, the number is at best 
a good guess ; a reasonable approximation. And since of 
the number present only one, a Mr. Deixel, (a "tool" of Mr. 
Dotey's), spoke in favor of the autocratic regime at Clin- 
ton High, the plausible assumption obtains that all the other 
persons, — with one or two possible exceptions, — were in 
favor of the democratic conception urged by several of the 
speakers. The point is simply that the arithmetical ac- 

W5 



curacy for which the committee pretends to be so insistent 
a stickler is not an important fact at all: a margin for 
arithmetic error may well be allowed without vitiating in 
the least the soundness and seriousness of the essential 
proposition. The essential proposition in relation to the 
Whalen meeting was the remarkable unanimity of feeling 
and opinion in behalf of the Whalen Resolutions. Let us 
stick to essentials. 

The Schoolmasters' Committee, relying upon Mr. 
Dotey's unreliableness, appends a list of names of Clinton 
teachers who, assumed to be present at the Whalen meet- 
ing by the defendants, are supposed, upon inquiry by Mr. 
Dotey, to have either denied their presence or to have de- 
nied their presence for more than a short space of time, or 
to have admitted their presence but to have denied that they 
voted at all. In these doubtful matters, where guess-work 
and memory-recall play their unscientific parts, it is often 
useful to check up a method by a test case. For example, 
Mr. Dotey appends as one of the names of the several who, 
so Mr. Dotey's Committee implies, were not present at the 
Whalen meeting, the name of Mr. Thomas. The fact is that 
not only did Mr. Thomas attend that meeting ; he delivered 
a short snappy speech in which he referred rather pointedly 
and sharply, to Mr. Whalen and his bulldog beh^ivior and 
concluded his rousing talk with an appeal to the Clinton 
teachers to join The Teachers' Union. ... If this be the 
sort of verification which the Schoolmasters' Committee re- 
lies upon to help them out of an obvious predicament, we 
shout back our derision at their predicament and their fool- 
hardy method of evasion. ... 

Moreover, from the statement of the pamphlet are we 
to understand that Dr. Paul was chiefly responsible for the 
Whalen-Tildsley investigation at DeWitt Clinton High 
School ? What was Dr. Paul's interest in this matter ? Was 
it, because "the patience and forbearance of the school of- 
ficials" (does that mean Dr. Paul and Mr. Dotey?) "reached 
the breaking point, however when one of the group, Samuel 
D. Schmalhausen, assigned as the subject of a letter to 
the President a topic which led a number of his pupils to 
make unpatriotic criticisms . . . ?" Was Dr. Paul's out- 
raged righteousness genuinely due to the nature of the as- 
signments ? If so, how will he or his apologists explain the 

116 



nature of the subjects contained in the mid-term examina- 
tions evidently approved of by the principal himself? 

Note: These subjects had already been prepared by 
the head of the English Department before October 22, the 
day on which Dr. Paul, thru Mr. Dotey, had become aware 
of the assignment and thought it a good opportunity to 
"get" Mr. Schmalhausen because of his activities in the 
Teachers' Council and as the chairman of the group oppos- 
ing the longer school day. As the head of the English De- 
partment, called as a witness by the prosecution, testified 
under oath, relating what had occurred when she handed 
the Herman composition to Dr. Paul: 
Testimony, Page 32: 

Counsel: Q. Did he (Dr. Paul) make an exclamation 
at that time in reference to the position that he deemed Mr. 
Schmalhausen to be in? 

Miss Garrigues: A. He said, I think — Yes, he said 
something. 

Q. What was it he said ? 

A. He said, I think, "I have him now." 

Q. Are not the words that he said, "Noiv, I've got 
him" ? 

A. I think so. 

Q. You think so? 

A. Yes. 

In November, 1917, while the trial of the three teachers 
was pending, the mid-terms were held at Clinton High and 
among the subjects contained in the English examination 
were these: 

Write brief proper, affirmative or negative : 
We seek no selfish er.ds in this war. 
Conscription is justifiable in a democracy. 

Write in outline from the brief proper: 
Strikes. 

Revenue by bond issue or taxation. 
Note: 

It is important to know that the assignment of the 
topic was the subject of an informal conference between 
Dr. Paul and Mr. Schmalhausen on Friday, Oct. 26, at which 
conference it was agreed that therafter whenever in the 
opinion of Mr. Schmalhausen any one of his topics for dis- 
cussion struck him as being "unwise", he would consult 

117 



with the head of department before final assignment. It 
cannot too often be repeated that the animus lying behind 
Dr. Paul's opposition was in no way connected with that as- 
signment or its consequences. In fact, the animus had been 
distinctly conceived against the teacher himself long before 
the date of assignment. 

(This theme will be amplified under the specific head- 
ing: THE CASE OF MR. SCHMALHAUSEN.) 

OTHER INFLUENCES OPERATING AGAINST THE 
DISMISSED TEACHERS. 

. ANTI-SEMITISM. 
What They Say 
Page 9. 
"The committee was unable to find any evidence, real 
or implied, which even intimated such prejudice on the part 
of Dr. Straubenmuller who directed the charges to be pre- 
ferred, . . . or of any of the . . . members of the Board 
who voted for their dismissal. The testimony at the trial 
shows that Dr. Tildsley while at DeWitt Clinton, had never 
entertained any such prejudice against any of them." 
(Page 10.) 

The Truth in the Case 

As against the committee's so-called search for evi- 
dence of religious prejudice, we, more fortunately situated, 
are able to adduce very convincing proof of the existence of 
a very deep anti-Semitic prejudice on the part of several in- 
fluential officials connected with the prosecution. We know 
nothing about Dr. Straubenmuller's connection with our 
case. The charges and the specifications were preferred by 
Dr. Tildsley. To a sub-committee of the Teachers' Defense, 
one member of the Board said : All the men (i. e., the dis- 
missed teachers) were Russian Jews. Their parents had 
come from Russia; the day was soon coming when they 

would be sent back to Russia where they belong 

They try to practice the things they couldn't do in Russia ! 
He hoped to see the day when there would be no more Rus- 
sian Jews in this country! . . . This is but one illustra- 
tion of a prejudice that existed in the minds of several of 

118 



the Board members. (We have examined carefully the 
pages referred to (102, 165, 234) and find no reference 
whatsoever to the religious faith of the three teachers. 
The text refers merely to the records of the three teachers.) 

Any member of the New York City teaching profes- 
sion who is at all intimately acquainted with Dr. Tildsley's 
career, will have no trouble in recalling several damaging 
cases of race prejudice in which Dr. Tildsley's anti-Semit- 
ism is flagrantly revealed. Of the several instances of anti- 
Semitism (which in the near future will be fully published 
in the case against Dr. Tildsley) we choose one as illustra- 
tive of the kind of bias that operated against the dismissed, 
transferred and interviewed teachers. The following quo- 
tations are taken from the official testimony of Examiner 
Byrnes, Coramissioner Churchill, et. al., in the case of Cohen 
vs. Pugh and Collins, the appeal of which is now pending 
in the court. 

Note: At the time of the Cohen hearing, Dr. John L. 
Tildsley was principal of the High School of Commerce. 
The hearing occurred at the Hall of the Board of Educa- 
tion, Nov. 14, 1916. All the incidents leading up to the 
hearing occurred during Dr. Tildsley's principalship at Com- 
merce High School. 

(Official Minutes, Pages 63, et. seq.) 

BY MISS LEVENTRITT: 

Q. Is it true, Mr. Smith, that since this time it is the 
sense of the Board of Examiners that no Jewish candidates 
be given classroom tests at the High School of Commerce? 

A. I have heard of nothing of that sort. We have not 
any special high schools in which to test Jewish candidates. 
We make no distinction whatever on that line. 

BY MR. CHURCHILL: 

Q. Do you know whether there is that coincidence, < 
that no Jewish candidate is given classroom tests at the 
High School of Commerce? 

A. I am certain that it cannot be the case. 

BY DR. WILE : 

Q. This is the only place you can give it for economics 
candidates ? 

119 



A. Since that time we have sent economics candidates 
to other high schools. The DeWitt Clinton get some. 
BY MR. CHURCHILL: 

Q. Do you know, Mr. Tildsley, whether any Jewish 
candidates have been given classroom tests at the High 
School of Commerce? 

A. I don't know, but I should think that there have 
been. We have a great many candidates there, and I am 
very sure there have been. 

Witness: There must have been in many subjects. 

Mr. Byrnes: I tvas informed by Mr. Blunt, of ivhom 
I made that inquiry (he is the clerk ivho makes these as- 
signments of candidates) that it is his understanding that 
no Jetuish candidate's, I do not know whether in all subjects 
or in some subjects, are to be sent to the High School of 
Commerce. (Note: These are our italics.) 

As further testimony establishing the plausibility of 
the charge of anti-Semitism, we quote the following ex- 
cerpts from Professor Beard's statement concerning the 
dismissal of the three teachers: (Letter Dec. 15, 1917.) 
"On careful inquiry I find no little anti-Semitic feeling in 
the case — the three teachers accused being Jews. This is 
denied but it is a fact." 

The most authoritative voice that has spoken the truth 
in relation to this malignant undertow of anti-Semitism 
comes in unmistakable accents from no less a person than 
ex-President William G. Willcox, who (in a letter, dated 
Jan. 25, 1918) honestly admitted: "I must confess to a 
great deal of uncertainty in my own mind regarding the 
course of the Board of Education. I cannot but feel that 
the attitude of some members of the Board, and possibly 
of Dr. Tildsley himself, was influenced in some degree by 
the so-called "Whalen Resolutions" and by opposition to 
the Socialistic views of these teachers, and possibly to some 
extent by racial considerations also. Furthermore, it was 
quite evident to me that in spite of the fact that no evidence 
was produced to indicate disloyalty, the whole atmosphere 
was charged with a suspicion of disloyalty which almost in- 
evitably, although perhaps unconsciously, affected the judg- 
ment of members of the Board. ... I felt during the 
trial, and I still feel that the whole situation was clouded by 
these irrelevant factors." 

120 



"The Trial" 
"In the matter of the three suspended high-school teachers, 
the expected has happened. The Committee on High Schools of 
the Board of Education has recommended the defendants for dis- 
missal, after a hearing in which was disclosed a state of mental 
and moral obfuscation on the part of the prosecution which in any 
ordinary times would have excited public ridicule. The Board of 
Education will doubtless concur in the verdict and expel these men 
from the service of the city. The case not only was prejudged from 
the beginning, but was disingenuous in inception, unfair in method, 
and un-American in spirit. Under the plausible guise of an effort 
to eliminate disloyalty from the teaching force in the city schools, 
these teachers are being punished, not for disloyalty, but for having 
been active in connection v.'ith the adoption by the De Witt Clinton 
High School faculty of a set of resolutions criticising by name the 
chairman of the Committee on High Schools. In the prosecution 
of the case, that chairman has been virtually complainant, prosecut- 
ing officer, judge, jury, and executioner." 

This compact summary on the unfairness of the "trial" 
is an editorial from the New York Evening Post, (Dec. 11, 
1917). No one who is acquainted with the standing and 
traditions of this most admirable and high-minded of 
American newspapers ean ascribe either the motive of par- 
tizanship or of wilful perversion of the facts to the writer 
of that editorial. But we shall not content ourselves with 
one distinguished opinion on the "trial". We take the lib- 
erty of quoting the most distinguished educator-philosopher 
America has produced. In his speech at DeWitt Clinton 
High School (Dec. 15, 1917), Prof. Dewey, commenting 
upon the so-called trial of the three teachers said : "These 
teachers have not gotten the rights of a fair hearing which 
everywhere else in the life of a citizen they have a right 
to before being held guilty. These teachers are not under 
trial for acts of any kind. They are under accusations. . . . 
So far as the evidence brought against them is concerned, 
there is absolutely nothing but charges about their private 
views and private opinions; and those views and opinions 
were not expressed within any school, but were brought out, 
taking it at their worst, taking it at Mr. Tildsley's and Mr. 
Paul's statements, in a purely private and personal hear- 
ing. / don't know what this is called in 1917, but I knoiv 
what it used to be called. It used to be called the Inquisi- 
tion." 

On the day of judgment, Dec. 19, 1917, every member 
of the Board of Education had placed on his desk before 

121 



him a copy of the following letter signed by twelve distin- 
guished professors representing Columbia University, 
Teachers' College and the College of the City of New York : 

Professors' Letter (Dec. 19, 1917) 
The situation in connection with the cases of the ac- 
cused DeWitt Clinton High School Teachers appears to us 
in danger of becoming irretrievably confused. Contradic- 
tory statements are made by those in authority who are 
pressing the case against the men as to whether the loyalty 
issue is involved. The general public believes that nothing 
more cruelly unjust could happen than at this critical time 
of war to have the professional career of teachers blasted 
under imputation of disloyalty if the actual charges against 
them are of another nature. On the other hand, the state- 
ment is widely current that the real source of the difficulty 
is found in the internal friction in the administration of 
the DeWitt Clinton High School, In the interests of public 
education and in justice to the officials of the school, this 
statement should either be substantiated or shown to be 
false. 

In this confused state of affairs, the need for further 
inquiry and deliberate consideration in order to ascertain 
facts and clear up issues seems manifest. There appears 
to be no urgent need for haste. Since the accused have al- 
ready been suspended from school duties, no harm can 
arise from delay in case further inquiry should show them 
to be unworthy of retention. Decision in many less im- 
portant cases has frequently been deferred in order to as- 
sure impartial decision. Accordingly, as citizens having 
direct professional interest in education, we respectfully 
suggest such delay as will enable the facts and the issues 
involved in them to be made clear. 

(Signed) 

W. T. Bush W. P. Montague 

M. R. Cohen H. A. Overstreet 

John Dewey Thomas PvEed Powell 

A. J. Goldfarb J. H. Robinson 

Carlton J. H. Hayes David Snedden 

N. P. Mead J. P. Turner 

122 



Prof. Charles Austin Beard (who was present at the 
"trial") said in a letter which he made public Dec. 15, 1917 ; 
"It is evident that there was bitter feeling between Mr. 
Whalen and the teachers of DeWitt Clinton High School 
before the loyalty issue arose. It is therefore in large 
measure an administrative fight — Mr. Whalen being prose- 
cutor, judge and jury in his own case." 

Mr. James H. Post, who had originally voted for the 
dismissal of the three men and a week later, because of 
conscientious scruples and doubts, changed his mind, wrote 
a letter to Commissioner Finley in behalf of the three 
teachers the last paragraph of which reads: "I feel that 
several members of the Board of Education did not have 
sufficient opportunity to consider the matter, in view of the 
fact that the last two meetings had to be largely given up 
to properly concluding numerous routine matters of the 
Board." 

What more startling confession of the fundamental 
unfairness of the "trial" of the three teachers could be 
asked for than the following editorial appearing in the New 
York Times (Dec. 21, 1917) : 

"There is probably something of disquietude or dis- 
satisfaction in the minds oi many of the city's entirely 
loyal citizens as a result of the severe punishment just in- 
flicted by the Board of Education on the three high school 
teachers convicted by it of the rather vague offense of con- 
ducting themselves in a way that does not become men in 
their position. This feeling is natural enough, and it has 
several excuses. 

For one thing, there has been made the always more or 
less effective appeal to our veneration of the much-misun- 
derstood right of "free speech." i^or aiiother, the proceed- 
ings at the trial of the accused teachers ivere obviously not 
such as would have brought about a conviction in a cowt 
where the established rules of evidence luere observed. As 
it happens, however, the case was not, so far as the Board 
was concerned, one that required observance of those rules, 
but rather for the use of the far less rigid method of judg- 
ing evidence which, while it always offends the lawyers, 
still is considered, and rightly considered, by all reasonable 

123 



men as adequate in determining action in their own affairs, 
no matter how important. 

The defenses of the three teachers are all technical, 
and they are all weakened or vitiated by the mistake of con- 
sidering the personal viterei^ts and legal lights of the 
teachers instead of the community's need to have its chil- 
dren properly taught by example as well as by books. 

(From an editorial in The New York Times — Dec. 21, 
1917.) (Our italics.) 

Com. Thomas W. Churchill said : 

"This is a pitiable travesty of a trial. I wouldn't send 
a dog to his doom on such evidence." 
Com. Joseph Barondess said : 

"This is not a trial. This is a lynching on unsupported 
allegations." 
Prof. Harry A. Overstreet said : 

"The trial itself was conducted under conditions that 
would excite great concern in a Court of Law." 
Prof. Charles A. Beard said : 

"It reminds me of nothing so much as the mediaeval 
days." 
Mr. Randolph Bourne said : 

"This is a public executipn." 
Dr. Wm. H. Allen said: 

"Travesty and menace are weak pictures of this gro- 
tesque mis-defense of loyalty. 

"No court would call a tramp disloyal on the basis of 
such facts as are adduced to justify branding and dismis- 
sing three teachers as disloyal. 

"The dismissal of three teachers, on facts given, is in- 
finitely more disloyal and dangerous to American ideals 
than anything charged or implied against the teachers." 
(From Public Service Bulletin, Dec. 18, 1917.) 

And finally, we quote a remarkabe passage from the 
testimony itself, in which Mr. Herbert C. Smyth, counsel 
for the teachers, one of the most acute cross-examiners, 
gives it as his legal opinion, in speaking of the procedure : 
"It is something comparable to the old Salem witchcraft 
trials, that persons who are supposed to have views that are 
not in consonance with the views of the community are put 
on trial and asked suppositious questions, not as to what 

124 



they had done, not as to what their duty required them to 
do, but taking a case that is not in point at all, what would 
you then do." (Testimony, page 263.) 



THE CASE AGAINST THE PROSECUTION 
(as evidenced by the testimony of their own witnesses) 



WHAT THEY SAY: 

(in their Report) 

p. 27 

"In each of the three cases the 
testimony of the school ofificials 
(together with the exhibits) in 
the opinion of the Committee, 
establishes the charges made. 
Their sfaieiiicnis arc simple, 
straightforward and positive. The 
testimony of one official is cor- 
roborated by that of the others." 



THE TRUTH OF THE CASE: 

As the quoted testimony of the 
prosecution's witnesses; will re^- 
veal, their statements, far from 
being "simple'' are involved, 
hesitant, self-contradictory and 
often obscure; far from being 
"straightforward," some of what 
purported to be the most damag- 
ing evidence, upon examination, 
proved to be crooked and disin- 
genuous; instead of being "posi- 
tive," their statements in large 
measure are either positively 
wrong or utterly inadequate. As 
we shall see ! In fact, the evi- 
dence reveals at every turn a self- 
interested motive that comes 
close to the margin of collusion 
and conspiracy. As we shall see. 
One would expect that the wit- 
nesses for the prosecution would 
indeed corroborate each other's 
.'•i.iten.ents, for in truth they had 
one and the same sinister inten- 
tion. But, in fact, as we shall 
show, their statements are often 
contradictory and conflicting. 



ILLUSTRATION I. 
(Case of Conflicting Testimony) 



Volume of Testimony p. 32. 

Miss Garrigues 
Q. Did he (Dr. Paul) make any 
exclamation at that time in 
reference to the position that 
he deemed Mr. Schmalhausen 
to be in? 



vs. 



Volume of Testimony, p. 48. 

Dr. Paul 

Q. She says that you said, "Now 
I've got him." Did you not 
say that? 

A. I regret that I must remain 
at variance with Miss Gar- 
rigues. 



125 



A. He said, I think — yes, he 

said something. 
Q. What was it he said? 
A. He said, I think, "I have 

him now." 
Q. Are not the words that he 

said, "Now, I've got him? 
A. I think so. 
Q. You think so? 
A. Yes. 



Q. 



A. 
Q. 



A. 



Q. 



You have always known her 
as a lady of absolute veraci- 
ty? 
Yes. 

Can you imagine how she 
could make such a mistake 
as that? 

I can only — the only solution 
I can get would be from the 
words of your client in the 
room at the time when he 
spoke of her as an emotion- 
ally energized lady on oc- 
casion. 

Do you think that is an 
answer to my question? 
I can find no other. 



Is this one of the examples the Schoolmaslers' Com- 
mittee had in mind when it referred to the statements of 
the school officials as being "simple, straightforward and 
positive;" that "the testimony of one official is corroborated 
by that of the others?" 



ILLUSTRATION IL 
(Case of Contradictory Testimony) 



p. 57. 



Dr. Paul 

Q. So that if this essay (the 
Herman letter) had been 
presented before that in 
class to Mr. S'chmalhausen 
and he had had the oppor- 
tunity of criticising, as he 
had according to his margi- 
nal notations, you would have 
great hopes that the next 
time the boy was called upon 
to address that particular 
subject it would be in an en- 
tirely different vein, would 
you not? 

A. I havei not only hope but 
knowledge that the boy has 
under the control and direc- 
tion of another teacher seen 
the mistake that he made in 
writing that letter. 



vs. 



p. 84. 

Dr. Tildsley 

Q. And the very thing that I 
am trying to make, the point 
I am trying to make is 
this answer in Herman's 
case, because that attitude 
was found out by his an- 
swer to that asignment, 
and his ideas have been 
rectified? 

A. His ideas, in my judgment, 
have not been rectified. 

Q. Have -you not admitted that 
before? 

A. I have not. 

Q. Did you hear Dr. Paul 
testify that his (Herman's) 
ideas now were entirely 
different than what they 
were? 



126 



Q. 


Did this other teacher follow 


A. 


I am not responsible for 




the annotations of Mr. 




what Dr. Paul says. 




Schmalhausen in criticising 


Q. 


Do you concur in what he 




that essay? 




says? 


A. 


The other teacher did not dis- 


A. 


I do not. 




cuss that essay per se. 


Q. 


You do not agree? 


Q. 


I see. 


A. 


No. 


A. 


The other teacher presented 


Q. 


With Dr. Paul? 




to the boy a better under- 


A. 


I do not agree with Dr. 




standing of the German Gov- 




Paul ; no. 




ernment, according to the 








boy's statement to me. 






Q. 


No opportunity was given to 
Mr. Schmalhausen to present 
any idea of the German Gov- 
ernment to this boy, was 
there? 






A. 


Not as I know of. 






Q. 


None that you know of. In 
fact he was suspended before 
there was any opportunity 
for him to do anything about 
the matter further than write 
the annotations in your 
office? What? 






A. 


That is correct. 







Is this another classic illustration in which, "the testi- 
mony of one official is corroborated by that of the others?" 

ILLUSTRATION III. 
(Clear case of prejudice) 
(Page 160, Dr. Tildsley speaking.) 
Q. Now wait a minute, Doctor, you are not interested 
in having this man discharged, are you ? 
A. / am interested. 
Q. You want him discharged? 
A, / do ivant him discharged. 
Q, Then you are an interested witness ? 
A. I am interested in my capacity as Superintendent 
of Education. 

ILLUSTRATION IV. 

(Clear case of personal animus) 
(Page 217, Dr. Paul speaking.) 

Q. Did he (Schneer) say pacifist? 
A. I do not recollect the exact word. 



127 



Q. Then why did you use that ugly word if he did 
not say it? 

A. With no intent. 

Q. Are you sure about that? 

A. Absolutely. 

Q. Then will you withdraw it? 

A. Willingly. 

Q. Thank you. 

A. But may I substitute the name I know he did use? 

Q. What? 

A. The name you asked me a moment ago, 

Q, Lippman? 

A. Beg pardon; Walter Lippman, yes. 

Q. Is that the name that you meant? 

A, That is the name that I meant. 

Q. Did you know that he was one of the advisers of 
President Wilson? 

A. I did not. 

Q. Do you consider any person who speaks from the 
stage, not in uniform, as a pacifist? 

A. No, sir. 

Q. That was a slip on your part, not intending to in- 
jure Mr. Schneer? 

A. Not intending in any way to injure Mr. Schneer. 

How will the Schoolmasters' Committee account for 
this most interesting slip of the tongue? Is this, in Mr. 
Dotey's phraseology, an illustration of "lapsus linguae?" 

ILLUSTRATION V. 

(Illustration of testimony that is "simple, straightforward 

and positive ! !") 

Page 93. Mr. Anthony speaking) 

Q. When Mr. Schmalhausen was asked whether he 
would allow a similar letter to be read, is not really what 
happened this — that Mr. Schmalhausen called attention to 
the fact that Herman was a very intelligent boy, as shown 
by his record? 

A. I do not recall it. 

Q. Do you deny it? 

A. I do not recall it. 

Q. Do you deny it? 

128 



A. I simply do not recall it. 
Q. You won't answer that question? 
A. I simply do not recall it. 
Q. You won't answer that question? 
A. I do not recall it. 

Q. Will you answer the one question that I ask you, 
do you deny that that was said ? 

A. I do not deny it. I do not recall it. 
(Mr. Smyth) Thank you. 

ILLUSTRATION VI. 

(Case of Tildsley vs. himself) 
Page 166.) 

Q. You say that you asked him whether he was in 
favor of early peace ? 

A. I did not. 

Q. Did you mention that subject? 

A. I did. 

Q. In what respect do you now say you mentioned 
that subject? 

A. I told him that I had drawn the inference that he 
was in favor of an early peace. I did not ask if he was in 
favor of an early peace. I told him that I had drawn the 
inference from his own attitude in the matter. 

Q. Assuming that he is in favor of an early peace, 
should he be discharged for that? 

A. / should say yes. 

Q. Are you in favor of an early peace ? 

A. I am not. 

Q. You are in favor of prolonging the war indefi- 
nitely ? 

A. I am not. 

Q. Then it is one or the other? Which is it? Do you 
want an early victorious peace? 

A. I do. 

Q, Then you want to see an' early peace? 

A. Not necessarily. 
. . Q. I do not quite get you. Are you a loyal American 
citizen? 

A. I am. 

Q. Then you do want to see an early peace, do you not? 

129 



A. Not necessarily. 

Q. Well, bu1>— 

A. What is the use of arguing about that? 

Q. Because I want to see how — show you how unfair 
you are. 

A. I am not unfair. I want a victorious peace as 
early as it can be brought about. 

Q. Is there anything he said that was different than 
that? 

A. Yes. 

Q. What? 

A. He wanted an early peace whether it was victor- 
ious or not. 

Q. Did he say that? 

A. I— 

Q. Did he tell you that? 

A. I do not believe he said it in those ivords, no, sir. 

Q. Did you, in your direct examination, say anything 
of that kind? 

.A Not in that language ; no, sir. 
. . Q. Have you not just thought of it when I put the 
word "victorious" in your mouth? 

A. No, sir, we both had in mind, or at least T had in 
mind, the idea of a peace such as the United States Govcrr- 
ment was working for. 

Q. Did you call his attention to the fact that you werf 
inferring that he desired an early peace without victory? 

A. No, sir. 

Q. Then why should you assume that he wanted ai 
early peace without victory? 

A. By the context of the conversation. 

Q. And that context you have given us? 

A. Not all of it. 

Q. Why did you not give us all? 

A. I gave you the main things as I remembered them. 
The conversation lasted about half an hour. I have not 
reproduced it all. 

Q. Had anything been said in that conversation about 
a victorious United States, a victorious peace? 

A. Not a word as to victorious, because the instance 
was the boys in the classroom discussing a movement in 
favor of peace. 

130 



Q. You have answered the question? 
A. No, I have not. 

Q. You have and I am going to ask another one. It 
is true, is it not, Dr. Tildsley, that you want an early peace? 
A. No it is not true. 

Then you want a prolongation of this world misery, 



do you? 
A. 
Mr. 



To a certain extent; yes. 

Smyth: Thank you, that is enough. (Our italics) 

For a revelation of an utterly confused, intellectually 
incompetent and provincially prejudiced mind, this testi- 
mony of the chief witness for the prosecution will go down 
in educational literature as another Comedy of Errors. 

The reader can no longer remain in doubt as to the 
pathetic show of virtue lamely revealed in the self-right- 
eous assumption of the Schoolmasters' Committee that the 
statements of the school officials testifying for the prosecu- 
tion are "simple, straightforward and positive. The testi- 
mony of one official is corroborated by that of the others." ! ! ! 

A few more illustrations culled judiciously from the 
volume of testimony will shatter completely the overween- 
ing self-confident assumption of the Schoolmasters' Com- 
mittee ! 

ILLUSTRATION VII. 
( Contradictions) 



Testimony Pages 69 and 70. 
Dr. Tildsley 

A. It is my opinion that a letter 
such as that would have a 
very serious effect on the 
boys in that class. . . This 
is not a mere theorizing on 
my part, but I have talked 
with the boy who wrote 
this letter, namelj^ Herman, 
who came to my office, and 
I asked him whether he 
would have written such a 
letter in the case of another 
teacher named Loughran, 
and he said he zvould not. 



Testimony Page 136. 

Hyman Herman 

Q. Was anything said about Mr. 
Schmalhausen by Dr. Paul 
at that interview? (Herman 
had been called to several in- 
terviews by Dr. Tildsley and 
Dr. Paul.) 

A. Not directly, or as far as 1 
know, indirectly, but Dr. Paul 
wanted to know whether I 
would have written in any 
other teacher's class such a 
composition. 

Q. What did you tell him? 

A. / told him, as I felt at the 
time I would have written it 
in any teacher's class. 



131 



(Mr. Smyth, Counsel for Defendants, continuing (Herman 

on stand.) 

Testimony, Pages 136-7 

Q. Did they ask you whether Mr. Schmalhausen had 
influenced you in writing the letter, so that you did write 
that letter? 

A. / suppose that is tvhat they wanted me to tell. 

Q. What did you tell them ? 

A. I told them nobody had influenced me, I would 
have written it in anybody's class. 

(Mr. Smyth) : That is all. 

Cross examination of Hyman Herman by Mr. Mayer, 
Counsel for Prosecution. 

Q. Would you have written this letter in Mr. Lough- 
ran's class? 

A. Had he given me the topic, I ivould have ivritten 
such a letter. 

Q. Even though Mr. Loughran had inculcated a spirit 
of patriotism in his class? 

A. / do not remember Mr. Loughran having inculcated 
any special spiHt of patriotism. 

Q. You do not? 

A. I do not. 

Q. Would you have written it in Mr. Lapolla's class? 

A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You would have written it? 

A. Yes, sir. 

(Counsel for the Prosecution still trying to compel 
Hyman Herman to assert that he had been given special 
instruction in patriotism by teachers other than Mr. Schmal- 
hausen) .... Testimony, Page 141 (for following) : 

Q. Your note addressed to your fellow students came 
as the result of the teachings which you imbibed since you 
wrote the letter to President Wilson of October 22, 1917, 
through your history teacher in the history class; is that 
right? 

A. From the history book in my history class. 

Q. And your teacher there? 

A. And my teacher perhaps. 

Q. Perhaps, do you say? 

A. He just simply pointed out what was in the book. 

132 



Q. Did he ever give you any direct instruction in 
patriotic attitude toward the government? 

A. No direct instruction. 

Q. No direct instruction? 

A. No, sir. (Our italics.) 

ILLUSTRATION VIII. 

Dr. Tildsley Versus Com. John Whalen 

(Testimony, Page 74) 

(Concerning the Whalen Resolutions) 

Q. To whom did you make any informal or any pre- 
liminary report, or to whom did you tell what the result of 
your conversation was? 

A. I talked with the Board of Superintendents about 
it. 

Q. Who else? 

A. I do not remember ; I talked to President Willcox — 
I do not remember whether I talked to President Willcox 
before or after I had made the investigation, but I have 
not made any report on that investigation as yet. 

Q. You have spoken to Chairman Whalen about it? 

A. Probably I have; yes, sir. 

Q. Probably? Have you no recollection about it? 

A. I have no recollection of having made any formal 
report. 

Q. I did not ask you for any formal report. 

(Chairman Whalen interrupts) : 

I can say that to you, he has not done so to me. 

(Mr. Smyth) : I did not say he had made any report. 

(Whalen) : He has not discussed it ivith me. 

(Mr. Smyth) : Do you mean he has not spoken to 
you, Mr. Chairman, about it? 

(Whalen) : No. (Our italics.) 

ILLUSTRATION IX. 

(Dr. Paul's Animus) 

(Testimony, Pages 32 and 33) 

Mr. Smyth: I think I am entitled to show animus if 
there is any. 

Mr. Mayer: It does not make any difference whether 
there tvas any animus or not. 

Chairman Whalen: No, I do not think it does. We 

183 



are just trying this specific charge. . . . We won't pay any 
attention to the animus of Dr. Paul, 'if any. 

Mr. Smyth : It may have this to do with it your Honor, 
that it will go to the credibility of those who framed the 
charges if they had a definite purpose and prejudgment 
coming from a definite purpose beforehand in attributing 
innuendoes or insinuations or interpretations or statements 
alleged to have been made by Mr. Schmalhausen. It some- 
times takes but the transposition of a little word to spell 
the difference between guilt and innocence. // there has 
been a predeternfiined effort, in the luords of Dr. Paul, "to 
get Mr. Schmalhausen," we find an imderlyiyig motive for 
that which will be illuminative when we come to hear the 
testimony of his accusers. 

Chairman Whalen: Mr, Smyth, we are interested in 
trying these charges, and if there is any feeling between 
Dr. Paul and Mr. Schmalhausen I do not think that we 
want to go into that, because these charges are preferred 
by the superintendent and they are specific, and if we are 
going to undertake to try all these little things that hap- 
pened before and after, we shall never get through tuith the 
trial of this case. 

Mr. Smyth : May I respectfully urge upon your Honor 
that the only object I have in asking this particular ques- 
tion is to show that the genesis of these charges was an oc- 
currence which had. previously resulted in the adoption of 
the resolution which were cHtical of your Honor. (Our 
italics.) 

PUBLIC OPINION IN THE CASE 
PROFESSOR LOUIS S. FRIEDLAND SAYS: 

"I consider that the official vindication of the teachers who 
were suspended by a moribund Board in its last days, after the 
people of this city had disowned most of the members of this 
Board, is a matter of the utmost importance. The actual vindica- 
tion of the suspended teachers is made clear to all who read the 
evidence in the case." 



MRS. JOHN DEWEY SAYS: 

"I think their reinstatement will bring a new sentiment for 
justice into play with that part of the public who have known their 
history, and that it is demanded for this reason as well as for 
repairing the professional wrong that has been put upon them 
personally." 

134 



REV. NORMAN THOMAS SAYS: 

"So far as I can gather from the newspapers the treatment 
measured out to them was unjust to them and dangerous to any 
sound theory of education or democracy. 

"I have read with care the evidence of the trial of the three 
teachers of De Witt CHnton High School. It confirms my opinion 
that they were victims of injustice and that the attitude of the 
School Board is not beneficial to the best interests of education." 



WINTER RUSSELL SAYS: 

"I feel strongly that democracy has received a severe blow in 
this infringement upon the rights of American citizens as well as 
of public school teachers; nay, as a father of four children, one of 
whom is now attending the public school and all of whom I expect 
will, as they become of age, attend the public schools, I feel that the 
rights of pupils were hereby abbreviated if not grossly assaulted. 

"I shall not attempt to present any new view of the case be- 
cause I realize of course that you will go into it most thoroughly, 
but I simply want to add my petition to the hundreds who will no 
doubt write to you, and to the thousands who feel just as deeply 
as I do, but who may not take upon themselves the initiative of 
addressing you in behalf of those three forward-looking and inde- 
pendent young men." (Letter to Dr. Finley) 

FREDERIC C. LEUBUSCHER SAYS: 

"I have just finished reading the testlmonj^ taken at the trial 
of the three High School instructors who were dismissed by the 
Board of Education of this City last December. I had received 
the impression from the newspaper accounts that they were dis- 
missed for disloyalty to the government of the United States. A 
reading of the record, however, shows that no charge of disloyalty 
was made, but that the charge was conduct unbecoming a teacher, 
and even that charge was not proven. The only explanation I can 
find for their dismissal is that it was the result of public hysteria. 
"I hesitated for some time about writing you for fear that my 
advocacy of their case might do more harm than good, because of 
my German name. You know me however, to be a loyal American 
citizen. Indeed considering my ancestry, it would have been difficult 
for me to be otherwise. My father was one of the revolutionists 
of '48, and was obliged to flee to this country about the same time 
that Carl Schurz arrived here. After he had become an American 
citizen he enlisted in the first New York regiment that went to the 
front, serving throughout the war of the Rebellion and commanding 
his regiment in many of the large battles, being wounded twice. 
Were he alive todaj^ he would do all he could to fight for democracy 
against autocracy. Being dead, his son must continue the war for 
freedom which he began seventy years ago. 

135 



"Knowing that you are not the sort of man who can be in- 
fluenced by public hysteria, I am confident that your consideration 
of the case will do full justice to the appellants." (Letter to Dr. 
Finley) 

***** 

MRS. J. P. WARBASSE SAYS: 

"I attended the hearing at your request on Monday, the testi- 
mony for the prosecution was incredible. It does not seem possible 
that in the Twentieth Century, people — Educators — could hold or 
at least state such opinions, in a democracy too !" 



DUNCAN MACDOUGAL SAYS: 

"I am one of a large number of the people of New York who 
would be glad to see the above-named teachers re-instated. In- 
deed, in my work as a lecturer and writer, and in my more im- 
mediate domestic circle, I have heard but one person speak un- 
favorably of the teachers; and that one also expressed himself 
out of sympathy with those who proceeded against them. 

"In reviewing the printed evidence I am amazed at the findings 
of the Committee on High Schools; and one questions whether one 
is living in the twentieth century or not. I was formerly a lecturer 
at St. Andrew's College, University of Sydney; and was for some 
years in practice as a teacher in London, England: having instructed 
in the households of the Duke of Portland, the Hon. Mrs. E. L. 
Franklin and other distinguished circles ; but in all my experience 
I have never known such an obvious, unmitigated outrage against 
our profession. To speak in cold blood, the conclusion of the trial 
is so contrary to just reading of law, and all equity, that I cannot 
but subscribe to the general opinion that the three teachers were 
sentenced by their offilcial enemies before ever their trial began 
The evidence against them being so arbitrary and inconsequential, 
so impertinent even to the puerile charges, I agree with the great 
majority of my friends and acquaintances in holding the proceedings 
to be farcical in the extreme. 

"Surely all sane persons interested in the progress of education 
must assume that if Dickens or Swift or Moliere were amongst us, 
each and all would pour scorn and ridicule on the Committe and 
on the Board, on Chairman John Whalen and Associate Superin- 
tendent Tildsley. And did not Shakespeare himself evoke a vision 
of the Chairman and the Assistant Superintendent in the no less 
renowned unconscious comedians, Dogberry and Verges of that ilk? 
But returning to the more pitiable aspect of the case, and the printed 
evidence, was not all honesty and manliness on the side of the 
accused, and the most contemptible bullying, meanness, and prevari- 
cation, if not perjury itself, on the side of the accusers? In plain 
English, we the public believe both the investigation and the trial 
to be framed up. We demand either a new trial or the re-instate- 
ment of the three teachers. The fact that some of the Committee 

136 



have already reversed their decision is one other reason for the 
re-instatement of the teachers; more particularly as these votes, 
if given in due time, would have freed the accused." (Letter to 

Dr. Finley) 

***** 

OWEN R. LOVE JOY SAYS: 

"I have followed with some care the entire proceedings at the 
time of the so-called trial last Winter and failed to recall any 
instance in which there has been so evident a miscarriage of justice 
or a case in which the final verdict had been so obviously determined 
upon before the examination began. 

"I am very keen, as you know, for the principle that loyalty to 
our American Democracy and its free institutions must be main- 
tained, and that in a time like this it is particularly important that 
it be emphasized. I do not believe, however, that our elementary 
schools or even secondary schools should be turned into training 
camps for the Army because the bulk of loyal service our citizens, 
especially the youth, can perform, is of quite a diflferent character. 
At the present time their chief need is to develop sound minds and 
sound bodies in order to prepare for whatever emergency the future 
may demand, and I think the attitude of some of the school officials 
in turning the attention of children away from their studies to the 
almost continual contemplation of military activities constitutes a 
kind of intellectual dissipation highly detrimental to the develop- 
ment of the pupils and the welfare of the public. 

"Apparently the offense these three teachers committed was 
against a superheated Prussian type of patriotic absolutism and 
their determination to stand on the principle of freedom of thought 
and expression in the public school to the fullest extent consistent 
with public safety and public morals. 

"I do not know any of these men personally nor their abilities 
as teachers, but I am convinced that our system of public education 
cannot afford to bear the onus of requiring a blind and unthinking 
obedience to authority which would not be tolerated in any of the 
other warring countries today — with the possible exception of 
Germany and Turkey. 

"If these teachers are to be dismissed permanently from the 
teaching staff as imfit custodians of the education of our youth, 
it should be on a trial and conviction so clear-cut as to leave no 
doubt in the public mind. 

"I beg you, therefore, as one who admires your spirit of democ- 
racy and fair play, to use your official power and influence for the 
re-instatement of these men." (Letter to Dr. Finley) 



HARRY WEINBERGER, LAWYER, SAYS: 

"I was graduated from De Witt Clinton High School many years 
ago, and while attending the school, many a time and oft, in 
athletic games, I carried her colors to victory, and my memory is 



X37 



of teachers who were thinkers and individuals; and so I have a 
personal interest in the case. 

"I have examined the record, and I believe that the teachers 
were unfairly dismissed. That Mr. Schmalhausen said:: 'He was 
loyal to the truth rather than to persons,' is certainly a crime, if 
we admit our school system has gone back to the days of the 
Spanish Inquisition. The discussion and the quibbUng on the part 
of the school authorities appear like the old discussions as to how 
many angels could dance on the point of a needle. Nothing in the 
evidence shows that these teachers were not men of ability and that 
they did not give satisfactory services as teachers. Only the war 
with its accompanying hysteria in some individuals can even lead 
us to forgive the imbecility of these proceedings. Miss Garrigues' 
testimony that Dr. Paul said: T have him now,' or 'Now I've got 
him,' referring to Mr. Schmalhausen, (knowing Miss Garrigues as 
I do, and knowing that that is the truth), shows the animus behind 
Dr. Paul, and shows a mind that would lay a trap to catch the un- 
warj% and come to believe that honesty is really disloyalty, and 
that independence is really subserviency to autocracy. 

"From the days of old the highest duty of a teacher was to 
think and honestly come to a conclusion and inculcate in his pupils 
and those coming under him, a desire for the truth. Pupils may 
come to a wrong conclusion as a result of their honest thought, 
but that is not so important as the question whether they think, 
because if they think wrong today, but really think, to-morrow 
they may think right. 

"Our great objection to German methods and German thought 
is the regimentation of the mind. This trial makes me believe there 
are many officials in our school system of New York who also 
believe in the regimentation of the minds and the thoughts of the 
teachers of our school system." 



Edward F. Alexander, Lawyer (Cincinnati, Ohio), writes 

"I fail to find any evidence that any act or other conduct of any 
of these teachers was complained of or was in question. The testi- 
mony of Superintendent Tildsley, who brought the charges, is 
that he himself laid the foundation for them by making private 
inquisitions into the mental attitude of the three teachers with 
reference to his own conception of patriotism. This was done by 
means of hypothetical questions as to what they would do or say 
under certain imaginary conditions which never arose and in all prob- 
ability never would arise. The answers of the teachers at these in- 
quisitions, as recalled by Dr. Tildsley, would seem to constitute 
the unbecoming conduct complained of. 

"Dr. Tildsley denies that the prominence of these teachers 
in connection with a certain teachers' protest resolution had any- 
thing to do with his singling them out for an investigation, but he 
fails to assign any other reason. His testimony reminds one of 



138 



the heretic hunters of the middle ages, and stamps hnn irretrievably 
as either an intolerant bigot or a vulgar, unscrupulous patnoteer 
In either case he would seem to be untit to be set over any part of 
an American school system. America is entitled to patriotic service 
in the schools, but she is also entitled to have her teachers free from 
the terrorizing activities of meddlesome trouble-makers. 

"It is amazing that a school superintendent should file charges 
backed up by such an absolute lack of facts as exists in these 
cases, and it is beyond belief that a Board of Education should 
dischkrge competent teachers on such trivial substitutes for evidence. 

"The motion of counsel for these teachers to dismiss the 
charges in these cases, should have been sustained immediately, 
with a reprimand to Dr. Tildsley for bringing them. In fact, 
Dr. Tildsley's conduct in these cases appears to be the only conduct 
unbecoming a teacher that was presented to the Board. The Board's 
action in sustaining the charges, points out the need of some pro- 
tection for teachers by way of organization or otherwise, if teach- 
ing is to continue to be a dignified calling for men who think with 
their own minds." 

PUBLIC EDUCATION ON TRIAL 
PROF. DEWEY WRITES: 

Social situations are never simple, and in wartime nothing is simple, 
save emotion. The educational conditions leading up to the dismissal of 
three teachers in a New York high school afford no exception to this 
statement. Guidance through the maze may be had, however, by review- 
ing the matter as a culmination of the established and traditional relation- 
ship of official superiors and inferiors in the school system, and as evi- 
dence of a sharp clash between two opposed social and educational philoso- 
phies But since these causes have been exasperated by war conditions 
and war psychology-, it is first necessary to say something about the 
"lovalty" aspect of the matter. 

' Almost up to the time of the meeting at which the men were dis- 
missed a reader of at least the editorial columns of the newspapers 
would 'have derived the impression that the teachers were accused of 
disloyalty of some degree or other. But by the time of the final meetmg 
the prosecution had settled on another formula. The men were not 
charged with overt disloyalty; they were charged with a lack of that 
active or aggressive loyalty which the state has a right to demand, m 
war time particularly, from its paid servants. Now lack, absence, is 
a negative thing; it is notoriously difficult to prove except when the 
thing at issue is definite and tangible. Opinions even among experts 
differ as to the precise constitution of loyal partiotism ; no burden of 
standardization has ever settled upon the exact tests by which its ab- 
sence is to be determined. r ., i <, 
The observer who bears in mind the negative character of the charge 
will have the kev to many of the otherwise inexplicable phenomena of 
the testimony (I'sav testimony rather than evidence advisedly) and the 
trial. Ordinarily a person is innocent till proved guilty. The charge of 

139 



absence of something, that something not being clearly defined, shifts 
the burden. Anybody may then safely be considered guilty until he can 
present convincing evidence that he is in possession of the required 
article — which is, perhaps, one reason why negative charges have not 
been encouraged in the legal procedure of more enlightened countries. 
Moreover, charges of lack or absence encourage suspicion. With the 
multiplication of accusations and loyalty pledges in the schools — pledges 
which naturally such pro-Germans as there are sign with the greatest 
regularity and cheerfulness — the situation was approaching the point ex- 
emplified in the old tale : "There is nobody in the congregation orthodox 
but you and me — and I am not quite sure about you." There follows 
another lack than that of active and aggressive loyalty, namely, a lack of 
intellectual scrupulousness in making and weighing charges. The lack 
of active loyalty is assumed to be so widespread that a sacrificial offering, 
even if somewhat vicarious, will be welcome to the God of Hosts. It 
is absurd to be too particular about positive evidence to prove the lack 
of a thing. There are suspicious circumstances; to punish this man will 
at least arouse others to a less passive patriotism. 

One who reads the volume of testimony with these things in mind 
will have little difficulty in understanding either its concentration upon 
views rather than acts, views which might be entertained on various 
hypothetical occasions rather than any views ever actually uttered, or 
its desire to entrap individuals into obnoxious statements. Such an 
atmosphere breeds suspicion, accusation and violent action, the phenomena 
of Inquisition, whether of Torquemada, Salem, the Comrhittee of Public 
Safety of the French Revolution, Lenine, or New York School authorities. 

All this, however, concerns the spirit and atmosphere, the local 
color, of the school episode rather than its substance, or structure. These 
are to be sought, as has already been said, in the only too well established 
methods of school administration with respect to teachers. Quite in- 
dependently of this episode, one of the least sensational of our school 
superintendents, Mr. Arthur Perry, has written a pamphlet regarding 
the problem confronting the new Board of Education. In it he frankly 
states that there is a general feeling that the building of the Board of 
Education is a circumlocution ofifice ; that there is practically no city-wide 
esprit de corps among the teachers; that because of this lack the "tre- 
mendous amount of enthusiasm and intelligence in the more than twenty 
thousand members is going pitiably to waste" ; that the devotion of 
teachers to pupils — which is general — is due to dictates of individual con- 
science, rather than to leadership, and that the feeling is widespread 
among teachers that instead of looking to their immediate employers, 
the Board of Education, for support and aid, they must rather protect 
themselves against their employers by using the pressure of legislation 
or of public opinion to secure "even ordinary consideration." 

This is a temperate, and even tempered, statement. It indicates the 
background upon which a particular difficulty has been projected. If 
there has been a lack of "active" loyalty in support of the war, the 
charge affects not three alone nor yet thirty nor three hundred. But 
what it reflects is not lack of individual loyalty, but just this absence 
of leadership on the part of nominal leaders, an undermined esprit de 

140 



corps, a widespread scepticism and even cynicism, the immediate responsi- 
bility for which does not lie at the door of the teaching staff. Not 
merely the accused teachers but the teaching force has been left without 
inspiration, and the guidance of any constructive policy and hence ex- 
posed to every sort of irresponsible interference and amateur pressure. 

It is matter of common knowledge that the strain in the relations 
between superior and inferior and the general unrest in the teaching 
staff have been on the steady increase during the latter years of the 
Mitchel administration. To (he teachers that administration presented 
its most brutal face. All of the better informed of the friends of the 
now defunct Gary system in New York have been aware for some time 
that its success was fundamentally compromised if not doomed by the 
autocratic way in which it was formulated and imposed from above. 
Under Mr. Churchill, the cultivation of more co-operative relations with 
the teaching staff had begvm ; after the fusion administration broke with 
him, the situation became largely that described by Carlyle as anarchy 
plus the constable's club. 

New York memories are proverbially short. But if any one will 
turn back to the newspapers of the pre-election days he will lind them 
full of school riots and school strikes, for which the fusion campaign 
managers with the inepitude which characterized their almost every act 
were holding, by name, Mr. Churchill, Mr. Somers and other members 
of the Board of Education, responsible. Pupils of De Witt Clinton High 
School were active in a strike against the imposition of the longer 
(seven hour) school day. The merits or demerits of this legenthened 
school day are of little account for present purposes in comparison with 
the fact that it presented one more autocratic decree and imposition from 
above. The teachers immediately affected were not even consulted as to 
its probable effects or the best way of administering it so as to mitigate 
the hardships it would work upon the many pupils who spent part of 
their time in earning money to continue at school. Provoked by these 
riots and strikes, and presumably as a Tammany man not particularly 
pleased at having them unjustly charged to Tammany, Mr. Whalen, the 
chairman of the High School Committee of the Board of Education, said 
that he would close the schools rather than allow teachers and pupils 
to "run them." 

This utterance seems to have furnished the proverbial straw. Mem- 
bers of the school council, most of whom are among the dismissed and 
transferred teachers, prepared resolutions condemning Mr. Whalen's at- 
titude as autocratic and called a meeting of the teachers of the school 
which passed the resolutions almost unanimously. The Inquisition fol- 
lowed. There is no evidence that Mr. Whalen himself instigated it. The 
variety and number of the coincidences with respect to the teachers 
called and not called, the questions asked, etc., amount to a mathematical 
demonstration of the connection between the two things. It was no ac- 
cident that the inquiry began in and concerns teachers in the De Witt 
Clinton High School. Moreover this action on the part of teachers in 
that school did not stand alone. Before this episode the school had been 
famous — or if any one will, infamous — as a center of unrest, of in- 
dependence, and of protest against autocratic administration. If an 

141 



example was needed, here was the place to begin. If specific charges of 
insubordination had been brought, the hearing might have cleared the air. 
Underlying causes of friction would have been brought out and the 
public been placed in a position to determine the balance of rights and 
wrongs. But it was more tactful to leave the indictment vague and to 
establish a subtle association between lack of loyalty to official superiors 
and to the nation. 

The direct clash of educational philosophies as to methods of teaching 
and discipline in dealing with pupils presents the same conflict from an- 
other angle. The situation between teachers and pupils corresponds, 
point for point as the mathematicians say, to that between teachers and 
their employers. Hence the phrases "teaching instinctive obedience" and 
"respect for authority as such' (with true metaphysical emphasis upon 
the "as such") are permanent contributions of the trial to pedagogical 
literature. Teachers who do not instil in pupils blind "doglike" fealty 
to every kind of authority are not likely themselves to yield it. Teachers 
who regard the possibility of utilizing their own thoughtful experience 
as an important factor in conducting the schools will respect the in- 
telligence of their pupils. This defines the fundamental issue. /.$■ au- 
tomatic routine habit or the development of habits of reflective considera- 
tion to be the dominant aim of teaching and discipline f Never has it 
been revealed more clearly that the latter is "dangerous" and the former 
"safe" — dangerous to whom and safe for whom being carefully con- 
cealed save as the subtle association with disloyalty may be insinuated. 
In spite, then, of the temporary prestige which war psycholog>' may give 
to automatic habit over against thoughtfulness as an educational end, pro- 
gressives might, were it not for danger of injustice to individuals, well 
be grateful to the reactionaries for having the issue so -unambiguou-sly 
set forth. The fact that this conflict of ideals and principles is the 
source of a multitude of other clashes and discrepancies is usually over- 
laid with irrelevant matter and ornamentally concealed with eulogistic 
phraseolog}'. The trial has brought it out in a bald, naked, uncompromi.sed 
form. The record stands. Like most reactionary triumphs after the 
issue is once revealed, the record will become a milestone in the history 
of the gradual victory of a progressive over a reactionary social and 
educational philosophy. — ^New Republic, Dec. 20, 1917. 



142 



DISTINGUISHED CONVERTS 

(Copy) 

JAMES H. POST, 

129 Front Street, 

New York City. 

Jan. 16, 1918. 
Hon. John H. Finley, President of the University and 
Commissioner of Education— State of New York. 

My dear Dr. Finley : 

In view of the fact that I was a member of the Board 
of Education from the first of January, 1917, until the close 
of the year, I am taking the liberty of writing to you 
"In the Matter 
of 
The Charges of Conduct Unbecoming a 
Teacher, Preferred by Associate Superin- 
tendent Tildsley 

against 
Thomas Mufson, A. Henry Schneer and 
Samuel D. Schmalhausen, teachers in the 
DeWitt Clinton High Schools." . . 

I was not present at the meeting of the "Committee 
on High Schools and Training Schools" of the Board of Edu- 
cation when the trial was conducted by that Committee, but 
I was present at the Board of Education meeting on De- 
cember 19, 1917, and voted in favor of accepting the re- 
port of the Committee recommending the dismissal of the 
teachers from the School System. 

Before that meeting I had read the testimony and had 
tried to form an opinion as to how I ought to vote, and at 
the Board of Education meeting I gave very close attention 
to the addresses for and against the accused teachers, and 
finally decided to vote in each case, in favor of the dismissal 

of the teachers. 

I had great doubt in my own mind, after readmg the 
testimony and even after I had voted, as to whether I had 
done what was right in voting for the dismissal of the 
three teachers, and I now feel that the penalty imposed was 
too severe. Since the meeting I have given considerable 
thought and study to the testimony and havs h^c\ confer- 

143 



ences with the teachers dismissed, and partly in view of 
their statements to me, I beg to request you to delay your 
final decision in regard to the matter, until you are able to 
give careful consideration to the appeal that I understand 
is being prepared by the Teachers to be submitted to you. 

President Willcox, in his opening speech before the 
Board of Education, December 19, 1917, said : 'The three 
teachers are not charged with disloyalty." 

I am informed that the records of the three teachers, 
on file, at the Board, attest to eight years of loyal and effi- 
cient service at the DeWitt Clinton High School. 

I feel that several members of the Board of Educa- 
tion did not have sufficient opportunity to consider the mat- 
ter, in view of the fact that the last two meetings had to be 
largely given up to properly concluding numerous routine 
matters of the Board. 

With highest esteem, I am. 

Very truly yours, 

(Signed) James H. Post. 



*LETTER TO PROF. GIDDINGS 

(Publication permitted by Mr. Willcox, 

President of the Board) 

Jan. 25, 1918. 
My dear Prof. Giddings : 

I thank you for sending me a copy of your letter to 
Dr. Finley regarding the three teachers dismissed from 
the DeWitt Clinton High School. I am interested to find 
that in spite of your emphatic position in the discussion of 
the matter in the High School Committee and in the entire 
Board, you now express yourself in favor of reinstating at 
least Mr. Schmalhausen and Mr. Schneer. 

I must confess to a great deal of uncertainty in my 
own mind regarding the course of the Board of Education. 
I cannot but feel that the attitude of some members of the 
Board and possibly of Dr. Tildsley himself, were influenced 
in some degree by the so-called "Whalen Resolutions" and 
by opposition to the Socialistic views of these teachers, and 
possibly to some extent by racial considerations also. Fur- 
thermore, it was quite evident to me that in spite of the 

144 



fact that no evidence was produced to indicate disloyalty, 
the whole atmosphere was charged with a suspicion of dis- 
loyalty which almost inevitably, although perhaps uncon- 
sciously, affected the judgment of members of the Board. 

I felt during the trial, and I still feel that the whole 
situation was clouded by these irrelevant factors. The one 
thing to emphasize and insist upon was the imperative 
necessity of positive and forceful influence in the class- 
room for inculcating in the pupils, loyal and patriotic at- 
titude toward the. American Government, and I could not 
but feel that the evidence bearing upon this crux of the 
whole situation was vague and indefinite. As you your- 
self forcibly pointed out, Mr. Schmalhausen's apparent re- 
action when faced with the scurrilous composition of one 
of his pupils, did not indicate any such indignant amaze- 
ment and protest as should have been expected from any 
teacher having the proper attitude towards his responsi- 
bility for the loyalty and patriotism of his pupils, but rather 
a disposition to consider the matter as a subject for theo- 
retical argument and metaphysical discussion. This, how- 
ever, was only an inference without any positive evidence 
of such attitude on Mr. Schmalhausen's part and unsup- 
ported by any proof in regard to his actual influence in the 
classroom. 

Mr, Mufson's refusal to answer when asked whether he 
believed it to be his duty to teach patriotism in the class- 
room naturally left the impression that he could not truth- 
fully answer in the affirmative, and that, as Dr. Strauben- 
muller said, he refused to answer because he was unwilling 
to lie. This again is merely an inference, however, and I 
can quite conceive that his refusal to answer was merely 
due to the mistaken belief that he should decline to answer 
any question not directly bearing upon the charges. 

Mr. Schneer's statement that he would not allow a 
man in military uniform to address his class naturally 
created an unfavorable impression, but to my mind it was 
quite susceptible of the explanation that he was merely op- 
posed to arouse in his pupils a militaristic spirit. The most 
serious evidence against Mr. Schneer, to my mind, was the 
sub-titles in his bibliograph. I am still quite at a loss to 
understand how any teacher fit to be entrusted with the 
moral training of High School boys could bring himself to 

145 



put before them such filthy suggestions as are contained in 
some of the sub-titles. 

My own position, as President of the Board, was ex- 
tremely difficult, especially as regards Mr. Schmalhausen 
and Mr. Mufson. At the meeting of the High School Com- 
mittee, which I attended, I was apparently the only mem- 
ber who had any doubt whatever regarding the recommen- 
dation for dismissal of all three teachers, and I did not 
feel that, as ex-officio member of the committee, I was jus- 
tified in submitting a minority report in opposition to the 
unanimous judgment of other members of the Committee, 
since such a minority report coming from the President of 
the Board would have inevitably carried a weight and in- 
fluence to which my individual judgment was not fairly 
entitled. 

When the vote was taken in the Board of Education, I 
was still so much in doubt that if any one of the 24 mem- 
bers who voted for dismissal had cast his vote for acquittal, 
I do not think I could have cast the deciding vote against 
either Mr. Schmalhausen or Mr. Mufson. When, however, 
the necessary number of votes had been cast by other mem- 
bers of the Board, I did not feel that I had any right to use 
my position as President to nullify or discredit their judg- 
ment, and T had no hesitation, therefore, in casting my vote 
with the majority. 

The fact that you and Mr. Post, and possibly some 
other members who voted for the dismissal of these teachers 
have now reconsidered their judgment, must naturally af- 
fect Dr. Finley's judgment, since without your votes the 
teachers would not have been dismissed. The question to 
be considered now is not only justice to these three teachers, 
but also the eflfect upon the school system. I must confess 
that I was influenced not a little by the report from at least 
two of the Associate Superintendents that the Board of 
Superintendents was unanimous in considering all three 
teachers as undesirable teachers who should be dismissed 
for the good of the schools. I suppose they still retain that 
opinion, and I am afraid that the reinstatement of these 
teachers now could hardly fail to have an injurious effect 
upon the influence of the Board of Superintendents and the 
morale of the teaching staff. On the other hand, if an in- 
justice has been done, it should of course be corrected as 

146 



far as possible, and as one of my business friends once 
said in a serious labor situation, "We can always afford to 
take a chance doing what is right". In view of the import- 
ance of the matter and the far reaching effect of Dr. Fin- 
ley's decision upon the school system, I am wondering 
whether we should not suggest to him the advisability of a 
conference with us and with President Somers, Dr. Straub- 
enmuller and Superintendent Tildsley in order that he may 
have the benefit of these various points of view before 
reaching his final decision. 

Sincerely yours, 
(Signed) William G. Willcox. 
* This letter was also sent to Com. John H. Finley. 

RETROSPECT AND PROSPECT 
A Vital Summary 

It is clear that in the City of New York at least there 
has been a serious lack in educational circles of the ordinary 
standards of honorable conduct. This lack of standards on 
the part of officials is a logical outcome of an autocratic 
system. When one man or a small set of men determine 
the policies of a great educational system of 22,000 teachers 
and 800,000 children, the ideals and practises of those few 
are not likely to be any better than the few^ think out, and 
find serviceable to their purposes. 

When the rest of those who serve the City in that De- 
partment are not expected, or even permitted, to partici- 
pate on a democratic basis in the formulation of policies, 
there are two effects noticeable. One is the absence of any 
considerable interest on the part of teachers in questions 
of educational policy. Another is a tendency to accept the 
official point of view on all issues that arise in the adminis- 
tration of education. Thus, even when an exposure is made 
of methods pursued by educational officials that are far 
from being honorable, the rank and file of the teaching 
staflf will accept the situation, as it has invariably adjusted 
itself in favor of the officials. This is true even of offenses 
against the code of sexual morality. Women teachers of 
unquestioned personal character will seldom murmur a pro- 
test against the social insult of the presence of a principal 
whose conduct presumably offends them personally. Nay, 
they will even oppose anyone who does attempt to force the 

147 



issue of the public welfare by calling attention to the of- 
fensive fact. 

There seem to be two interpretations of this attitude 
on the part of teachers. One is that any disturbance in the 
official relations of superior and subordinate will jeopardize 
the economic security of subordinates. Principals have no 
power to dismiss, but they do have the power to "rate" the 
teachers. A low rating supported by the low rating of a 
superintendent will result, in the first three years of serv- 
ice, in dismissal without a trial, and after three years in a 
stopping of the salary increase, and potentially in final dis- 
missal. A point of even m^ore far-reaching significance is the 
fact that teachers in general do not think of their own pro- 
fessional activities in terms of social icelfare. If they 
thought even of the welfare of their profession itself, they 
would be inclined to risk their economic security for the 
larger benefit to their profession. On the one hand, the 
Teachers' Union finds itself in the midst of a professional 
conflict with a staff of educational officials in which there 
are some who on occasion employ dishonorable methods to 
maintain the autocratic system intact, while others agree by 
their silence, to the professional ethics involved. On the 
other hand, the Union has long realized the difficulty of 
striving to improve the conditions under which our work of 
teaching is done, especially when large numbers of teachers 
are willing to submit to those conditions, serious as they 
are. The leaders to whom the teachers have long been ac- 
customed belong to the group from which the committee of 
the Schoolmasters' Association has been drawn. These 
leaders submit to the system as a matter of course, because 
their hope of advancement lies in their doing so. Even 
when they may be disposed to criticize occasional policies of 
their superiors, their "common sense" tells them that it is 
useless to object. Thus, the autocratic system that has 
grown up has held together thru the self-interest of he 
officials and their potential successors, aided by the acquies- 
cense of the teachers. 

As an instance of the psychology of teachers in rela- 
tion to conflicts that involve important interests of their 
own, we may cite the general indifference and the lack of 
interest in the outcome of everyone of the major cases re- 
lated in the body of our pamphlet. When the conflicts de- 

148 



veloped they were each regarded by teachers in general 
as lying between the officials and the accused teachers. In 
the earlier case mentioned there was in no quarter a com- 
mon feeling that if a teacher has risked his position for an 
ideal of professional conduct, that other teachers should 
support his undertaking. It was to them a personal fight. 
In the later cases the Teachers' Union organized and con- 
ducted the defense with singular devotion. But no other 
organization did more than to express a private interest. 

It is a feature of the union movement among teachers 
frankly to assail the psychology of complacency and to 
stimulate teachers to care about the conditions under which 
their work is done. There can be no real improvement of 
the teaching undertaken in the schools until a professional 
esprit de corps is developed. If the public is not well 
enough informed about educational matters to think about 
getting better teaching thru having teachers who are mem- 
bers of a real profession, then teachers themselves should 
do this in the interest of the public. 

A real profession with standards which the members 
have developed has no place for a system of petty rating 
that lies at the root of the autocratic power. The members 
of a real profession will in their professional relation main- 
tain the same social standards of conduct to which they 
submit in their own private life, and they tvill demand the 
maintenance of these standards by others in their profes- 
sion without regard to the non-essential relations of su- 
perior and subordinate. 

It is nothing less than preposterous that because a 
person happens to be a superior officer, he may employ his 
immoral inclinations and go scot free. Or that he may 
brutally mistreat and insult those over whom he has power. 
Or that he may inflict false charges upon those whom he 
dislikes for reasons of personal or racial antagonism. These 
things are continually being done in the educational system 
of the City of New York. They will be done again and 
again until the teachers themselves arise and stop it all. 

The union movement is not primarily concerned, how- 
ever, with making a campaign against incompetent or dis- 
honest officials. But it is concerned thru the avenue of the 
participation of teachers in the management of the schools 
with the introduction of democracy in the institution where 

149 



the people's most important business, the training of young 
citizens, is carried on. Not only is this necessary for the 
improvement of the formal service of the teachers, but it is 
also necessary to feed the yearning among the intelligent 
for social power, for inspiration to go on to greater and 
greater accomplishments. Yet more than all is it neces- 
sary for the reason that all the world is awaking to the 
dream of democracy as never before. The school must be 
the seminar and the laboratory of democracy. 

One of the most specious claims of autocracy is that 
it is only the occasional official who offends the public 
conscience, and that most of the educational officials are 
honorable and high-minded. The existence of an autocratic 
system of educational administration does not imply that 
all the superintendents and principals are over-bearing 
or dishonest. In fact the autocracy could not maintain it- 
self at all if a very large number of the officials thru whom 
the system works out its purposes were not honorable and 
high-minded men and women. But the attitude of these 
commendable persons toward dishonorable or low-minded 
fellow officials is one of loyalty to officials as such, rather 
than to the social welfare as such. Hence, the regeneration 
of educational administration, and thru that the attain- 
ment of a more definite social purpose in education itself, 
is impossible of attainment merely by the process of having 
more of these good men and women, encouraging as that 
would be in a general way. 

Slow as the process may be, the only hopeful indication 
of a solution of the problem of educational administration, 
and the loosening of the bonds on education, lies in the di- 
rection of the development of a social idealism on the part 
of the workers, — the teachers themselves. The movement 
toward the development of a spirit of class-consciousness 
among teachers must of course have its beginning amid 
tribulations. Injustice will often drive out from the pro- 
fession the more aggressive spirits who begin the struggle, 
but the struggle once begun will gain force by the repeated 
efforts of those who are willing to take the initial risks. 
So long as the class-conscious movement among teachers 
strives with the vision of the social welfare ahead of it 
there can be but one end, and that is the ultimate triumph 
of an idealism in which the teacher is supreme in his serv- 

150 



ice to the people, and is a self-respecting, respected and 
effective agent in a democracy. 

The rank and file of teachers are not likely to take up 
with a democratic movement that is evidently so unpopular 
with their superior officials, until it is borne in upon them 
that the methods of defeating critics thru "transfer," or 
dismissal, or by pigeon-holing incriminating evidence ex- 
hibits the characteristic weakness of all autocracies. At 
some time or other that form of human control must resort 
to arbitrary power, and that power is not backed in au- 
tocracy by the approval of the masses. Hence, it will be 
reduced to the necessity of imposing injustice to gain an 
immediate end, and that moment it is logically doomed. 

On the other hand, the strength of democracy lies in 
the fact that it can never be wrong so long as it is true 
to the principle of seeking the good of all the people. Even 
under the disappointment of error, the agents of democ- 
racy have a source of power which makes their program 
unconquerable in the end. Even if the organization which 
in the present instance is responsible for calling to the 
attention of the public the shortcomings of a huge educa- 
tional system proves to be ineffective in bringing about the 
regeneration of an important social institution the end of 
it has not come. The work will be carried on by others who 
must come forward in the social regeneration which the 
war with its destructive influence on traditions has made 
inevitable. 

Education must be made safe for democracy and de- 
mocracy for education ! 

EXHIBITS ON "CRITICISM IN WAR TIME" 
Explanatory Note 

The Schoolmasters' Committee has cunningly attempted 
to taint the reader's mind with the suspicion that the purely 
educational criticism of the Teachers' Union (and The 
American Teacher) is somehow a species of "disloyalty." 
The fact is that The Teachers' Union has never even whis- 
pered an adverse comment on the administration's conduct 
of the war. It has from the beginning accepted and sup- 
ported the President in his far-reaching idealism. What 
we should like to ask of the Schoolmasters' Committee is 

151 



this: What do they (and their co-patriots in the Ameri- 
can Defence Society) think of the point of view and of the 
brand of Americanism of their great leader, Theodore 
Roosevelt (Honorary President of The American Defence 
Society) and of his political co-worker, Mr. Job E. Hedges? 

(Exhibit A) 
CRITICISM IN WAR TIME 
"Citizens or Subjects?" 
(By Thedore Roosevelt, Honorary President of the Ameri- 
can Defence Society.) 

"In a self-governing country the people are called citi- 
zens. Under a despotism or autocracy the people are called 
subjects. This is because in a free country the people are 
themselves sovereign, while in a despotic country the people 
are under a sovereign. In the United States the people 
are all citizens, including its President. The rest of them 
are fellow citizens of the President. In Germany the people 
are all subjects of the Kaiser. They are not his fellow- 
citizens; they are his subjects. 

"This is the essential difference between the United 
States and Germany, but the difference would vanish if we 
now submitted to the foolish or traitorous persons who en- 
deavor to make it a crime to tell the truth about the Admin- 
isration when the Administration is guilty of incompetence 
or other shortcomings. Such endeavor is itself a crime 
against the nation. 

"Since this war began the suppression of the truth by 
and about the Administration has been habitual. In rare 
cases has this been disatvantageous to the enemy. In the 
vast majority of cases it has been advantageous to the 
enemy, detrimental to the American people and useful to 
the Administration only from the political not from the 
patriotic standpoint. 

"The Senate Judiciary Committee has just recom- 
mended the passage of a law in which, among many ex- 
cellent propositions to put down disloyalty, there has been 
adroitly inserted a provision that anyone who uses 'con- 
temptuous or slurring language about the President' shall 
be punished by imprisonment for a long term of years and 
by a fine of many thousand dollars. 

"This proposed law is sheer treason to the United 
States. Under its terms Abraham Lincoln would have been 

152 



sent to prison for what he repeatedly said of Presidents 
Polk, Pierce, and Buchanan. 

"It is a proposal to make Americans subjects, instead 
of citizens. It is a proposal to put the President in the po- 
sition of the Hohenzollerns and Romanoffs. 

"Government by the people means that the people have 
the right to do their own thinking and to do their own 
speaking about their public servants. 

"Any truthful criticism could and would be held by 
partisanship to be slurring or contemptuous. The Dela- 
ware House of Representatives has just shown this. It 
came within one vote of passing a resolution demanding 
that the Department of Justice proceed against me because 
of my recent speeches in Maine. 

"I believe the proposed law is unconstitutional. If it 
is passed I shall certainly give the government the oppor- 
tunity to test its constitutionality. For whenever the need 
arises I shall in the future speak truthfully of the President 
in praise or in blame, exactly as I have done in the past. 

"When the President in the past uttered his statements 
about being too proud to fight and wishing peace without 
victory, and considering that we have no special grievances 
against Germany, I spoke of him as it was my high duty 
to speak. Therefore I spoke of him truthfully and severely, 
and I care nothing whether or not timid and unpatriotic 
and shortsighted men said that I spoke slurringly or con- 
temptuously. In so far as the President in the future en- 
deavors to wage this war efficiently and to secure the peace 
of overwhelming victory, I shall heaftily support him. But 
if he wages it inefficiently or if he should champion a peace 
without victory or say that we have no grievance against 
Germany, I would speak in criticism of him precisely as 
I have spoken of him in the past. 

"I am an American and a free man. My loyalty is 
due to the United States and therefore it is due to the Presi- 
dent, the Senators, the Congressmen and all other public 
servants only and to the degree in which they loyally and 
efficiently serve the United States." 

(Quoted from a reprinted article in the "Tribune ot 
April 6, 1918.) 



153 



CRITICISM IN WAR TIME 
(Exhibit B) 

"There has been evident of late a tendency to denounce 
as 'disloyal' the citizen or legislator who criticised the ef- 
fectiveness of the Administration's war policies. It has 
even been urged by many that during these wartimes the 
political parties should ignore their individual organizations 
and give their unqualified approval to candidates for the 
simple reason that they have given public proof of their 
'loyalty.' 

"To say that criticism of the manner in which specific 
acts are being performed is disloyalty is to be unintelligent, 
is to reduce citizenship to such a servile following as would 
be without Virility, without potential force, and without the 
enthusiasm that come from consciousness of joint partici- 
pation. The best evidence of a rising outraged public senti- 
ment against the awfulness of Prussianism is shown in the 
present running line of comment on what the Administra- 
tion is doing. It indicates nothing more than a desire that 
the best shall be done. 

"The argument that to criticise the manner of conduct- 
ing the war means disloyalty, and, therefore, should not be 
tolerated, leads to the inevitable conclusion that the war is a 
mere party matter and the only persons interested in it are 
those who are conducting it. Pride of opinion from the 
inside is as dangerous as pride of opinion from the outside. 

"Every one knows that the most active, efficient, prac- 
tical, constructive work done since the United States de- 
clared war has been done since there began to be general 
criticism by the people at large, and by intelligent, thought- 
ful leaders of opinion. As long as that continues in the 
right spirit there will be no recession in effectiveness. The 
moment there is no criticism its absence can be taken as 
the measure of an indifference deadly to loyalty. It is as 
puerile to say that any one who criticises an administrative 
act is disloyal as it is to say that an administrative act well 
intended but unintelligent is necessarily loyal. 

"There has never been effective progress in State or 
Church without criticism. Whether or not the criticism is 
efficient is to be determined after it has been made, other- 
wise the test of efficient criticism is the approval of the 
person criticised. 

154 



"No man ever lived in this country or ever will live 
in this country whose judgment should surpass the com- 
bined judgment of all the others; and whenever any man 
thinks that he alone should direct and that the other follow 
with servile complacency, it makes democracy unsafe for 
the world. 

"Democracy must furnish its own mentality and its 
own morality from its own ranks. Democracy is without 
pregnant force if any portion of it becomes mentally or 
morally servile and performs the sole function of following." 

(From N. Y. Times. Article by Job E. Hedges, June 2. 
1918.) 

APPENDIX: LEGAL OPINION 

LEGAL POINTS OF INTEREST TO ALL TEACHERS 

N. B. The following is taken verbatim from the ad- 
mirable Brief prepared by the Counsel for the Defendants, 
Gilbert E. Roe, one of the most distinguished liberal-minded 
lawyers of America. 

"In my opinion, this entire trial proceeded upon a mis- 
understanding of the law. It proceeded upon the theory that 
the security in their positions which the law had thereto- 
fore guaranteed the teachers had been withdrawn and that 
they held their positions virtually at the discretion of the 
Board. This error appears from the character of the 
charges filed and from the conduct of the case. For ex- 
ample, at page 311 (stenographer's minutes), Mr. Sm^yth 
who represented the three teachers before the Board offered 
in evidence the By-Laws of the Board as they existed be- 
fore the adoption of the present Statute, and the following 
occurred : 

"Mr. McTntyrc: We object to these By-Laws because it seems 
quite apparent from Mr. Smyth's statement that the By-Laws are 
introduced for the purpose of showing that the teachers may be 
tried for the grounds specified in each of those bj'-laws, namely, 
misconduct, insubordination, or neglect of duty, and general ineffi- 
ciency. Is not that right? 

"Mr. Smyth: That is right. 

"Mr. McTntyre: We object to them on the ground that the 
by-laws have been superseded bj- the statutes, by the last amendment 
to the Educational Laws, June 8, 1917, and that provides that a 
teacher may be removed for cause, and the cause is any substantial 
cause that appeals sufficiently to your discretion, and we object to the 
by-laws on those grounds. 

155 



This argument of the Assistant Corporation Counsel is 
made in a number of places throughout the case and it 
seems to have been assumed by the Board that if the Act 
of 1917 superseded the Charter provision (Section 1093) 
that then the Board could, as stated by the Corporation 
Counsel, discharge any teacher in their discretion for any 
cause deemed by the Board sufficient. A motion was duly 
made in the case of each of the teachers to dismiss the 
charges for insufficiency and was overruled and the answer 
in the case of each of the teachers raised the sufficiency of 
the charges so that the question was squarely presented and 
overruled in each case. 

I have no doubt that the Act of June 8, 1917, super- 
seded Sec. 1093 of the Greater New York Charter and that 
the causes for which these teachers can be discharged must 
be found in the former and not in the latter. So far, how- 
ever, from lessening the security of the teachers in their 
positions, the Act of June 8, 1917, increased it. The por- 
tion of the Act of June 8, 1917, material to the present dis- 
cussion, is found in Sub-Section 9 of Sec. 872 and provides 
that permanent teachers such as it is admitted the appel- 
lants are: 

"Shall hold their respective positions during good behavior and 
efficient and competent service and shall not be removable except 
for cause, after a hearing by the affirmative vote of a majority of the 
Board." 

The clear meaning of this Statute is that the teachers 
shall (1) be removable only for cause and after a proper 
hearing and by affirmative vote of a majority of the Board, 
and (2) that the teacher cannot be removed for any cause 
during good behavior and so long as he renders efficient 
and competent service. Under Sec. 1093 of the Greater 
New York Charter repealed by the above Act of June 8, 
1917, it was provided that a teacher could be discharged 
"for gross misconduct, insubordination, neglect of duty or 
general inefficiency." 

In the Henrietta Rodman case, decided by this Depart- 
ment, June 8, 1915, a teacher was suspended for six months 
for writing and publishing in a New York newspaper a 
letter commenting most unfavorably upon the motives and 
conduct of the Board while that body was acting in a ju- 
dicial capacity in determining its policy with respect to the 
continuation of "mother-teachers" in their positions. In 

156 



that case, this Department construed Sec. 1093 of the Char- 
ter as follows : 

"]t is obvious that the purpose of this Statute was to give to 
the Board of Education a comprehensive disciplinary control over 
the teachers of the schools of the City. Its scope is sufficient to in- 
clude every aci on the part of the teacher, tending to impair her 
usefulness in her position, or to injuriously affect the administra- 
tion of the school system." 

In the same opinion and referring to the letter in 
question, it is said : 

"I am of the opinion that in this case it would have been well 
to ignore this comment. It would in time have brought its own 
condemnation. ... I believe that the end sought would at the time 
have been accomplished by an expression of censure or by a sentence 
less severe, and, while I suggest that the Board, even at this late 
date, might well consider a reduction of the term of suspension, I 
am unwilling to make an order which would impair the authority 
or discretion of the Board in this matter." 

It will thus be seen that while the Honorable Com- 
missioner of Education did not agree with the Board so far 
as the severity of the sentence is concerned, he gave to the 
then Statute an interpretation which made the disciplinary 
power of the Board extend to every act on the part of the 
teacher which might impair her usefulness as a teacher or 
injuriously affect the administration of the school system. 
The power of the School Board could not be enlarged be- 
yond that indicated in the opinion in the Rodman case and 
leave the teacher any substantial security in his position 
if a Board desired to remove him. It was in this state of 
the law that the Act of June 8, 1917, was passed. That 
Act, in the portion above quoted, accomplishes several 
things. In the first place, it will be observed that Sec 1093 
of the Charter grouped together indiscriminately causes 
for dismissal and causes for lesser punishment. In other 
words, that Section provided that charges might be pre- 
ferred against a teacher for gross misconduct, insubordina- 
tion, neglect of duty or general inefficiency, and that, as a 
result of trial on those charges, the teacher might be either' 
fined, suspended for a fixed time without pay, or dismissed. 
The portion of the Act of June 8, 1917, above quoted, elim- 
inates all question of lesser punishment and goes directly 
to its purpose of securing the tenure of office of the teacher 
by providing that the teacher should not be removable ex- 
cept for cause, after a hearing, by affirmative vote of a ma- 
jority of the Board, and should not be removed for any 

157 



cause during good behavior and efficient a7id competent 
service. Minor offences for which a teacher might be dis- 
ciplined by censure, fine or temporary suspension are not 
referred to in this Section, the central thought of which is 
clearly to secure the teacher against discharge by the Board 
for any cause except that which the legislature prescribed. 
It would, indeed, be strange if the legislature in the 1917 
Act had given the Board power to discharge a teacher for 
causes for which the teacher could not previously have been 
even fined or temporarily suspended. The legislature 
clearly intended no such absurd result. In the 1917 Act, 
the legislature discarded the general language of Section 
1093 of the Charter and used language which has a definite 
and technical meaning. When the Act of June 8, 1917, pi'o- 
vided that a teacher should not be removable "except for 
cause", it declaimed, in effect, that a teacher should not be 
removable except for some valid reason, arising out of the 
non-performance or improper performance of official duties 
by the teacher. 



In People ex rel. Callahan v. Board of Education, 174 
N. Y., page 176, Supra, it is said : 

"We agreed with the learned Appellate Division that section 
1117, as continued by section 1101 of the revision, was designed to 
establish the general rule applicable to all teachers, regardless of 
when they were appointed, that a public school teacher in the 
greater city should be protected against removal 'during good be- 
havior and competency.' " 

There is no charge here that either Mr. Schmalhausen 
or any of the three teachers were, incompetent. On the 
contrary, the proof is that they were each of them extremely 
competent. There is no charge that Mr. Schmalhausen or 
either of the three teachers have failed "in good behavior." 
Referring now specifically to the charge against Mr 
Schmalhausen, we find the allegation to be that he is charged 
with conduct unbecoming a teacher. But there is no pro- 
vision in the Statute which authorizes a Board to discharge 
a teacher for conduct which it may consider unbecoming. 
The Board has simply tried to create a new offense. What 
is conduct "unbecoming a teacher?" A Board might think 
that wearing a certain style of dress was unbecoming a 
teacher, and that it was unbecoming a teacher to go to 

158 



dances, and that it was unbecoming a teacher to hold other 
than orthodox views upon any subject. At this time, par- 
ticularly, a Board might hold that to eyitertain the vieivs 
of a Quaker was unbecoming a teacher and justified such 
teacher's discharge. If the Statute provided that any 
teacher might be discharged for any conduct which a Board 
regarded as unbecoming, the effect would be to absolutely 
destroy the right of the teacher to be secure in his position 
during competency and good conduct, of which right the 
law is most jealous. Prior to the adoption of the Greater 
New York Charter, teachers were dischargeable at the will 
of the Board except as they might be protected by contract. 
But commencing with 1897 and continuing down to the 
present time, the legislative object plainly has been to give 
the teacher greater and greater security in his position. 
See: 

People ex rel. Fisk v. Board of Education, 69 Hun. 212 
People ex rel. Callahan v. Board of Education, 174 N. 
Y. 169. 
Tenure of office and civil service acts, both Federal and 
State, have in recent years all been tending in the same di- 
rection, namely, toivard givhig the employee of the public 
greater and greater security in their positio7is so long as 
their service loas good. It would be in the highest degree 
absurd to suppose that the Legislature, by the Act of June 
8, 1917, intended to withdraw from teachers any of the 
protection and security in their positions which the prior 
law had given them. And yet, if the Statute is construed 
as contended for by the Assistant Corporation Counsel and 
so as to include, among the causes for discharging a teacher, 
whatever a school Board may consider to be "conduct un- 
becoming a teacher", then, indeed, all independence of a 
teacher is gone and we have returned to the system of 
twenty years ago, which, by depriving teachers of all se- 
curity in their positions destroyed their incentive to perfect 
themselves in their professions. 

* • * * * * 

All these specifications (against the teachers) are far 
afield from anything contained in the Statute. They con- 
demn a state of mind, not acts, not conduct, not behavior. 
If a teacher can be discharged for a state of mind of which 
the Board does not approve, then, of course, that is the end 

159 



of freedom of teachers in our Public Schools. A Protestant 
Board may find in the state of mind of every Catholic 
teacher sufficient "superstition" to require his discharge. 
A Catholic Board may find in the state of mind of every 
Protestant teacher sufficient "impiety" to require his dis- 
charge. And both may find in the state of mind of every 
Quaker sufficient "disloyalty" to require his discharge. 
Any opinion on any subject, though the opinion has not 
manifested itself in the acts of the teacher, if the Board 
strongly enough disapproves such an opinioyi, will, under 
the practice of the Board in this case, be a ground for dis- 
charging the teacher, and the worst of it will be that the 
evidence against the teacher will be obtained as it was done 
in this case, by orally quizzing and interrogating the 
teacher suspected of heterodox views on any subject, with 
the result that there will be the confusion, uncertainty and 
disagreements in testimony manifest in this record. It is 
intolerable that such a practice should exist or such a re- 
lation be established between school Boards and the teach- 
ers. There is nothing in the law that authorized the charge 
or the specifications, and they should have been dismissed 
as being on their face insufficient. 

^ ^ ^ :{: H: 

THE SO-CALLED TRIAL OF MR. SCHMAL- 
HAUSEN AND HIS TWO ASSOCIATES WAS WHOLLY 
ILLEGAL. 

Sec. 881 of the Act of June 8, 1917, provides that: 

"All teachers . . . lawfully appomted or assigned before this 
Act takes efifect, shall continue to hold their respective positions 
for the term for which they were appointed or until removed as 
provided in subdivision three of Section eight hundred and seventy- 
two of this article." 

Subdivision three of Section 872 of the article provides, as 
we have seen, that all teachers 

"who have served the full probationary period or have rendered 
satisfactorily an equivalent period of service prior to the time this 
act goes into efifect, shall hold their respective positions during good 
behavior and efficient and competent service and shall not be re- 
movable except for cause after a hearing by the affirmative vote of 
a majority of the Board." 

Mr. Schmalhausen and his associates admittedly are cov- 
ered by the above provision, as they had long previously 
served the full probationary period and had been appointed 
as regular teachers long before the Act of June 8, 1917, was 

160 



passed. The above Act took effect June 8, 1917 ; the pres- 
ent proceedings were instituted in November, 1917. The 
teachers could, therefore, be removed only in accordance 
with the terms of Subdivision 3, of Sec. 872 above quoted. 
Now, there is no provision in this section or in this law 
for the trial of the teachers except by a quorum of the full 
board. Without such provision, of course, a tHal otherwise 
than by at least a quorum of a full board cannot be had. 
This precise question has been passed upon by the courts 
and is not open to discussion here. In People ex rel. De 
Vries v. Hamilto7i, 84 A. D. 369, the question was presented 
whether a Deputy County Clerk could take testimony which 
the County Clerk was authorized to take under the Civil 
Service Law for the purpose of trying charges against an 
exempt fireman, and report the testimony to the County 
Clerk for final action. The Court holds that this cannot 
be done in an opinion which is conclusive here. In the 
opinion, it is said : 

"We are cited to no authority, except as will hereafter be 
noticed, nor have we found any, either statutory or otherwise, au- 
thorizing a deputy to perform the duties of his chief, take the proof 
offered upon the hearing, and then pass the proceeding over to the 
clerk to make the determination. The judgment which is pronounced 
in each case involves a determination upon the merits and the exer- 
cise of discretionary power thereon. The basis therefore is found 
to a large extent in the impressions produced upon the mind of 
the officer from the appearance and candor of the witnesses, and 
is common and material to all judicial proceedings. This has been 
held to be a prime factor in determining the weight of the testi- 
mony and in control of "the punishment which ought to be inflicted. 
It is substantial in its nature and courts have uniformly attached 
great weight thereto, making it a controlling element in their de- 
termination in many cases. In the orderly course of judicial pro- 
cedure a trial may not be severed so that one functionary may take 
the proof and another make the determination. Such power has 
never been exercised, so far as we are aware, unless is was con- 
ferred by statutory enactment." 

This question of practice becomes vitally important in 
view of the creation of the new board, under the Act of 
June 8, 1917. If less than the whole board can hear 
charges, then, of course, one member could hear them and 
report to the board. The acting Corporation Counsel, 
George P. Nicholson, in a communication dated February 8, 
1918, addressed to Hon. Arthur S. Somers, President of 

161 



the new Board, replied to a question of the Board on this 
point after referring to the statutes, as follows : 

"Obviously, therefore, in the cases which are triable under 
Sec. 872, subdivision 3 of the Act of 1917, there is no statutory 
authority which expressly permits the Board of Education to dele- 
gate to a Committee the hearing of the testimony of the witnesses. 
In my opinion, there is no implied warrant for such a procedure, in 
as much as in the absence of the statutorj'- provisions to the con- 
trary, the person on trial is entitled to have all witnesses heard 
by the individual or body that is to pass judgment upon him. Hence, 
it follows that the persons who are placed on trial in accordance 
with Sec. 872 must be tried by a quorum of the Board of Educa- 
tion and judgment must be rendered by the members of the Board 
who sit at the trial." 

I am not unmindful, of course, of the fact that the Act of 
June 8, 1917, Sub-section 4 of Sec. 881, provides: 

"The rules and regulations adopted by a board of education 
in pursuance of any law hereby repealed shall continue in full force 
and effect notwithstanding such repeal, until the same are modified, 
amendment or repealed by the Board of Education as provided in this 
chapter." 

Also, that by Sub-section 4 of Section 21 of the By-Laws of 
the Board of Education, it is provided : 

"Except when otherwise ordered by the Board, said Committee 
shall conduct all trials of principals and teachers in high schools 
and training schools against whom charges have been brought in 
accordance with Sec. 1093 of the Charter and shall report its con- 
clusion to the Board for action thereon." 

But Section 1093 of the Charter was repealed by the Act of 
June 8, 1917, and in any event, the charges against the 
teachers in this proceeding were not brought or attempted 
to be brought in accordance with Section 1093. The Act 
of June 8, 1917, provides in express terms that these 
teachers could only be removed in the manner provided in 
Sub-section 3 of Sec. 872 of that Act. The By-Law in ques- 
tion above quoted, even if it could be given any force at all, 
after the repeal of the charter provision to which it at- 
taches, which is doubtful, does not purport to provide for 
a trial conducted under Sub-section 3 of Sec. 872. Admit- 
tedly, the present trial, so far as it can be called a trial at 
all, was taken under Sub-division 3 of Sec. 872 of the Act 
of 1917. Indeed, the Notice of Suspension of Mr. Schmal- 
hausen, dated November 12, 1917, and the same is true of 
the Notice given to each of the other teachers, provided : 

"You are hereby notified that in accordance with the provisions 

162 



of Chapter 786 of the Laws of 1917, and with the By-Laws of the 
Board of Education, ... I hereby suspend you without pay. " 

These Notices, while not introduced in evidence are a part 
of the records of the Board and the Commissioner will, of 
course, take judicial notice of them if necessary. It follows, 
therefore, that the whole proceeding was void. The point 
is jurisdictional. It involves a question as to the poiuer of 
the Board ; it could not be waived. 

If, upon a review of the testimony, the Hon. Commis- 
sioner of Education is of the opinion that there is nothing 
in the evidence warranting a dismissal of the teachers, it 
will not be necessary to decide the question raised under 
this point, for, if the evidence does not warrant the dismis- 
sal of the teachers then it makes no difference before what 
body or tribunal this alleged trial was had. If, however, it 
could be found that there was anything in the evidence 
warranting placing the teachers upon trial, the order would 
be as in the DeVries case, that they be restored to their 
positions and a new hearing had before a tribunal properly 
constituted. There should be no straining to uphold the ac- 
tion of the trial Committee, which was clearly unauthorized 
by law. These teachers, as the record shows, did not have 
either a fair or a legal trial. In this connection, I respect- 
fully refer to the Matter of Walwrath, No. 5251, page 1026 
of Mr. Finegan's excellent compilation of judicial decisions 
of the Educational Department. All that was said in that 
case by the learned Commissioner is equally applicable 
here. In the first place, the Chairman of the Committee, 
Mr. Whalen, was clearly disqualified, as the record shows, 
and would not, had he been a judge, have thought of sitting 
in a similar situation in a court of law. (Stenographer's 
Minutes, pages 15-18, 41, 91-93). Moreover, the unfair 
limitation placed upon the cross-examination of the prose- 
cution's witnesses, (S. M. 39-41, 71-73) and the admission 
of incompetent testimony against the teachers, (See Tilds- 
ley's so-called expert testimony, P. 84-87), and the refusal 
to accept proper testimony offered in their behalf, (P. 85, 
86, 123-127) in the many instances shown by this record, 
makes it from every point of view desirable, if they are to 
be tried at all, that they should receive a new, fair and legal 
trial. One matter which would be reversible error in any 
court in the world is contained in the speech of Mr. Somers 
set up in the answer filed with the Honorable Commissioner 

163 



in this case. I refer to the introduction and reading before 
the full Board for the first time of damaging articles, the 
authorship of which was charged to Mr. Schmalhausen with- 
out a particle of proof to support the charge or to show 
that Mr. Schmalhausen had ever heard of the articles. Of 
course, Mr. Schmalhausen was without representation be- 
fore the Board and had no opportunity to deny or explain 
the charge, (See particularly, pages 3-4 and 8 of Mr. Somer's 
remarkable speech). The case of People ex rel. Ajas v. the 
Board of Education, 177 A. D. 936, is exactly in point. The 
error in that case consisted in the taking by the Chairman 
of the Committee of statements of some witnesses in the 
absence of the defendant. These statements were less in- 
jurious than the ones unlawfully injected in this case by 
Mr. Somers before the Board. In the opinion in that case, 
it is said : 

"Such procedure was palpably wrong and it is impossible to 
conclude that such statement did not to some extent influence the 
minds of the triers." 

And for that error, the finding of the Board was annuled. 

Although a man is a teacher his rights are still de- 
fined by law. In the Walrath case previously referred to 
(See Compilation of Judicial Decisions by Finegan, Page 
1028) the methods adopted to effect the dismissal of a 
teacher were much like those in the case at bar. In that 
case the then Honorable Commissioner said: 

"It must be understood that a teacher is entitled to a fair chance 
for his life and that a teacher's place is not to be the foot-ball 
of politics, or partisanship in other forms. If a teacher to whom the 
law gives a permanent tenure 'through good behavior' and declares 
that he can only be removed for cause, is to be removed, the cause 
must be a reasonable one and the procedings leading up to the de- 
termination must be so conducted as to establish the cause and yet 
protect the teacher's rights." 

and further, in the same opinion, it is said : 

"He (the teacher) had had considerable experience in the place 
he held. He was not an old man incapable of further progress and 
yet better accomplishments. The school over which he presided 
was upon his heart. He was entitled to be treated like a man. to 
be regarded for the public service he had rendered. He was not a 
mere hired man. He was entitled to be conferred with about the 
interests of the school." 



164 



I yield to no one in the exacting 
demands I make for loyalty and pa- 
triotism on the part of the teachers 
charged with the duty of educating 
the children of our public schools. 
My own children are among the num- 
ber receiving their instruction from 
such teachers today. Too often pa- 
triotism, however, is confused with 
militarism; "Loyalty" is confused 
with intolerance and persecution. 
We are already reapng some of the 
terrible consequences resulting from 
whipping up this spirit of intolerance 
in the cases of lynching, mob violence 
and outrages taking place all over the 
country, which can only discredit us 
in the eyes of rational people every- 
where and which will discredit our 
cause throughout the world. 

Gilbert E. Roe, 
Counsel for The Teachers' Union. 



Grayzel Press 



m^Z.?' CONGRESS 




AN APPEAL TO AMERICAN 
TEACHERS! 



Fellow Teachers : 

If you are impressed by this little 
volume on Contemporary Education, 
why not acquaint yourselves with 
ALL the available literature reveal- 
ing the methods and manipulations 
of Autocracy in our Public School 
System? Write to THE TEACH- 
ERS' UNION for: 

1) A Volume of the Testimony. 

2) A Summary of the Evidence. 

3) (Another copy of) TOWARD 
THE NEW EDUCATION. 

4) The American Teacher. 

A New World is Emerging. 
Become one of its Apostles. 



